User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of the founders of religious traditions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the founders of religious traditions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism being the oldest religion in Iran

Regarding this revert [1]: You quote Zoroastrianism on when the religion became "state religion", but the religion was founded before it became state religion. Specifically citation #36 in the Zoroastrianism articles says that (direct quote) "Zoroaster, lived in Persia, probably during 10th century BC". Even though there are other opinions, the Atlas of World History privileges this one by using "probably". That is good enough for historical sources, should be good enough for this article. In conclusion, you wanted this information to be backed by the Zoroastrian article, and now you got it. I'll await your answer before reverting, as you suggest. Iranians (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Out-of-place artifact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Vrishaketu

The page history (including PROD and move) is all at Draft:Vrishaketu. GiantSnowman 15:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thanks. Then it was never an article. Weird how it showed up in my watchlist then. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If I remember, it was in main space and I moved it to DRAFTspace. GiantSnowman 15:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: That's what I assumed, but Vrishaketu doesn't have any history. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what confused me as well - a glitch, worth posting at WP:VPT? GiantSnowman 15:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I was about to when I decided to check with you first. Will do. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That ip editor, 12.181.159.162 (talk · contribs) is making edits to that article now. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of a Source.

Don’t mean to impose on you.

but do you find these sources reliable?.[1][2][3] Nacirian (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nacirian (a Single-purpose account) is using those sources to claim that 70% of Syrians belongs to an Arab tribe. I believe to support such a claim, you need solid academic sources, counting on actual research supported by statistics. The Syrian state does not do such statistics, and I havent find any academic work that mention such a percentage. Also, those sources, such as the Guardian (number one in Nacirian's list here), are counting on the statements of activists and tribal personalities inflating the numbers of their tribe. They are all written by journalists and not one of them provide an evidence for the claims. The other two sources are a website called newsdeeply, who in the end of its article state that it copied it from an article on a website named chathamhouse, which is the third source provided by Nacirian; meaning his second and third source are the same. This material was written by an unknown journalist named Akil Hussein--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
the Guardian and News Deeply are award-winning Newspapers and Companies. and i think that Journalist is known enough to get his research puplished and copied by 3 notable news sites.
i guess that there work matters more than the opinion of a clear POV Aramean nationalist that ironically accuses others of being "ethno-religiously biased".
i am not pointing fingers tho... Nacirian (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Im Arab not Aramean.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
clearly!!. Nacirian (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That was sarcastic. Are you racist against Arabs?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
i am a Triggered Aramean nationalist, so... maybe!. Nacirian (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
How incredibly silly are these sources (lol!), the last two sources were written by the same journalist who studied media...whoa. Nacirian you need to read what actual scholars, such as Philip Hitti, have written. Moreover, you first source is listed in the opinion section of the Guardian? (That's clearly not good) Remove the fact that the same journalist is not a reputable academic scholar, he even says in his own words, these clans or tribes are identities laced with a lot of politics, which says nothing about Syrian ancestry nor ethnicity. Your journalist says, in his own words "Yet in the south, all of the attempts to build another similar force have failed (with the exception of the ongoing Army of Free Tribes initiative backed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which is active in the area of Lajat, where the Bedouin identity is still preserved to a large extent, as opposed to neighbouring Hauran and the Golan). Indeed, clan and tribal identity in these areas has all but faded away, despite the fact that the main centre of the al-Naim tribe, one of the largest Syrian tribes, is located in the south. This is largely due to the expansiveness of this tribe. This tribal weakening has led to the increased prominence of major families, according to an analysis by journalist, Muid Abu-Zaid, from the province of Daraa. Political or tribal identities come and go, but not the ethnicity nor the ancestry of a people. George Al-Shami (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Stop lolling, this isnt facebook and I hope you are not 12.
first of all, no one asked your opinion on this section.
secondly, your opinion on the journalist also doesn't matter, as i said before, that Journalist is known enough to get his research published and copied by 3 notable news sites.
the guardian is used in many articles on Wikipedia, like Louis C.K's article. etc.
the rest of your statment doesn't even make sense. Nacirian (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Could you please comment on this ANI

Hi there, I'm reaching out to you as one of a group of long-term editors on the page Syrians who seems to have participated in a reasonable consensus version of the article as of late-July of this year. There's currently a very heated ANI about severe WP:CIVIL issues and (though the poster denies it to be a motivation) what looks a lot like an edit war over last weekend: [2] and these two editor both tend to put up text-walls of angry replies at each other which makes it really difficult to figure out what's going on here. Could you please comment on the situation from your perspective? Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Block BLP-violating user

Can you or any other admin (who is reading this) block this dude[3]? The editor keeps adding BLP violating material to one page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I started to look at it, but Gogo Dodo has already blocked them for abusing multiple accounts. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)×2 I reblocked the account indef after WikiMaster25463 showed up and did the same edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Lol, viewing the current block makes it appear I did it! Anyway, thanks User:Gogo Dodo, I was out with my wife doing Pilates. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet again

Hello Doug, after you notified OxfordLaw to go gain consensus instead of editwarring, he proceeded regardless to revert the preferred version. I am genuinely not sure if OxfordLaw fully understand or comprehend --from his edit summary-- that this and this constitute what we call consensus. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: the thing is, he isn't edit-warring. It needs to be worked out on the talk page. By the way, my revert today was one of a number I made of an IP vandalising by changing numbers, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Doug, I tried every method, the 3O said separate sections shouldn't be made, he didn't participate in the DRN, and the pinged users preferred the narrative ( unbroken style) version, on the other hand his version isn't supported by anyone, thus he goes against the consensus (notice I have objection on the manual of style, not content, unless it is inconsistent, he could add what he believes was deleted). Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nabataeus: the next step would be WP:RFC. Probably with a question with links to the two versions asking which is preferred. Note the question itself needs to be worded neutrally. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll do it when I have time, thanks. I hope I didn't bother you lately. Nabataeus (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


@Nabataeus: It's ok. There's really nothing I can do right now as an Admin. I know how frustrating this sort of thing can be. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian 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) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jane955

This edit [4] appears to me too be a violation of User:Jane955's Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement topic ban. Not to mention a repeat of the sort of off-topic soapbaxing discussed in the recent ANI thread. [5] (For disclosure, I am the same person that contributed to that thread as IP 86.147.197.31). 81.154.7.26 (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sign your name here. You are obviously the editor I complained about for using valgur language. It is you who should be removed from Wikipedia. Doug, what was the violation in the ME section, is complaining about a rude editor considered a violation?--Jane955 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually capable of making a talk-page post that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy? 81.154.7.26 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that Bishenen has now blocked Jane955 for a week for the violation of the topic ban. [6] 81.154.7.26 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

your constant cancellations on the poodle article

Hi, Your modifications on the poodle page are biased and start to violate some wiki principles on objectivity and neutrality. The info are corrects, documented and pertinents.The fact is that 97% of the worldwide dog kennel clubs state the poodle as a French breed, this is not to you to try to make the things different. For your information a breed is a human creation, and thus you can’t go back to the eve of time to try to make your point. Otherwise, why don’t we decide that the german shepherd or the rotweiller are French because they were heavily bred with the Beauceron? Furthermore most of the literature asserts that the poodle descends from the Barbet. Please go and check the German, Dutch, Belgium, Irish, Austrian, Swedish or Australian kennel club if you wish, this French breed was brought to Europe with the Arab conquest of Spain with the Barbet. Pictures of poodle like dogs have been found around the Mediterranean sea since the ancien times. Most of the »wolly dogs » are coming from the same region such as the bichon, the Portuguese and Spanish water dog. It seems that this obsession is flirting with some francophobia by denying the French origin of the poodle. If it is the case, please make you a treat and purchase you a Schnauzer. As a German contributor said on this subject :Grund: Ursprung laut FCI-Standard ist Frankreich. Bitte dem Link in der Box folgen für Bedeutung von „Ursprung“. Ursprung ist nicht unbedingt Herkunft der Rasse » This is ludicrous, even Germany itself officially declared in 1936 that the poddle was solely a French breed, want more do you want? A Papal bull ;)?? If you want to go to an arbitration committee on this subject, you are more than welcome, but I have to say that my ref are solids, documented numerous and pertinent. I hope that this discussion will make an end to this nonsense discussion.--Gabriel HM (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Gabriel HM: Talk:Poodle is likely where this discussion should take place; I also highly doubt that there would be any reason for ARBCOM to care about this. —PaleoNeonate – 08:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #327

A barnstar for you

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Shekhinah

Thank you for your edit to shekhinah, but perhaps you didnt notice that the replacement of the previous tag with an otheruses tag was for the purpose of creating a disambiguation page, and that should have been apparent whether I posted a comment with the edit or not. Maybe you didnt see it. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: sorry, but I'm afraid I didn't see it. That's why edit summaries are so important. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Allegation of racism

See diff. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

On TRM and VA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I think it was a bit of a faux pas on your part allying your concerns of the project with his ITN-based gripe. You legit want to reform the process, but I'm not sure he does. His motivations seem suspect to me. He's even hinting that he's open to deleting the entire project. I also don't believe his trademark confrontational demeanor is a good addition to the VA project. pbp 15:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, I really don't know. I don't like his confrontational demeanor but you haven't helped with that. I wish you yourself hadn't been confrontational. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Doug Weller talk 15:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I get angry with TRM, but the fact remains that I am at the end of my tether with that man. He's made no bones about the fact that he wants me indeffed, and he buttinskies into what I'm doing from time to time trying to BAIT me (diffs available if necessary). I can't have a meaningful conversation with him because he deletes anything I post on his talk page and threatens me in any other discussion. And I'm by no means the only person he's bullied. pbp 15:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Confrontational and most importantly, completely wrong. I'm glad you reverted your own incorrect assertions though, very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hi, TRM. Stop bullying me. I removed them because talking to you doesn't go anywhere; you consider any criticism of you to be bullying and harassment, even when you bully and harass just as bad or worse. However, I still believe them to be correct: that you came to VA5 in bad faith. I am not intimidated by you; your previous claim that telling you off would result in ANI or sanctions came to naught and any noticeboard discussion of my actions of late on VA5 will result in nothing but a boomerang for you. And if you want me to disengage with you on your talk page, avoid me elsewhere. @Doug Weller:, please note that request. I have made it to TRM every time he's demanded I avoid his talk page, and he's declined to do so. He also continues to treat me worse than he treats vandals; his condescending tone toward me and other editors is unacceptable. pbp 15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Stop diverting from the issue here: you are not welcome ever on my talkpage, and continuing to post false assertions in particular is harassment. You don't own VA and Doug invited me over there. It's not all about you. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Doug didn't invite you until after you ranted about VA5 on your own talk page, a rant motivated by displeasure at VA being used in ITN (which, BTW, is a project you've got MAJOR ownership issues with). In your "opening pass" of VA5, you said "don't be surprised if "vital articles" stops existing in its current form". Your very first comment threw around the possibility that you would demand that VA be deleted or restructured. Meanwhile, you have yet to offer any concrete proposals to change the VA5 inclusion process, nor have you participated in any of the existing proposals for changes to the VA5 inclusion. All you've done is throw around claims that the project needs to be abolished in its current form and harangue at me. How is anyone supposed to assume you're there in good faith when that's what you're doing? As for your talk page, I will reiterate my request once more: if you don't want me there, don't interact with me elsewhere. You can't choose to interact with me in one place and then scream "harassment" when discussion of your interaction spills on to your talk page. It's that simple really. I'm not going to let your overuse of words such as "harassment" intimidate me in the slightest, BTW. pbp 17:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Stop diverting from the issue here: you are not welcome ever on my talkpage, and continuing to post false assertions in particular is harassment. You don't own VA and Doug invited me over there. It's not all about you. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dante8 socking again

Dante8 is socking again not only as IPs such as this one, but also as TheSavannahRoller (talk · contribs). TheSavannahRoller took to editing soon after the JaneSwifty account was blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, TheSavannahRoller did make this edit hours before you blocked the JaneSwifty account, but the sock investigation was going on at that time and Dante8 knew that the block was coming. The heavy editing as TheSavannahRoller started soon after that block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'll look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: blocked, I'll do the SPI tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

IP edit warring

An IP has chosen to edit war[7] unreliable sources into the Reconquista article. After being asked twice to take concerns to the article talk page, I posted a warning on their talk page, which the IP called HARASS. Clearly this is not a "new user". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Possibly not, although the only candidate is [8] but why didn't you give him a 3RR warning? I've had to do that, can't just block him. Since he ignored that, I've now blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

About Juba II

I have read many articles outside Wikipedia and all of them are saying that Juba II is a Mauretanian King, that's mean that coin and the tomb are the Mauretanian's King, Numidia have been demolished 40 B.C so how could he be the ruler of a demolished country?! if I took Wikipedia seriously I will loose a lot, please follow the logic and if you want sources and references you can find across the Web. Jamaru25 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to change Numidia which says "After the death of Arabio, Numidia became the Roman province of Africa Nova except for a brief period when Augustus restored Juba II (son of Juba I) as a client king (29–27 BC)." Of course you can't change the sources that back that up. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OMG! You should read many books about how to read the context, I advice you to read "The Jughurthine War" it was written by Sallust is a Roman Historian, and this said that Numidia become a part of Africa Nova which is later fused with Africa "current Tunisia" by The Roman king Claudius, which Numidia is totally faded, and The king Augustus restored Juba II and raised him and educated him and when he grow up he made him a King of Mauretania after the late Mauretanian King, this is mean what I have said I the first message... you should should research outside Wikipedia. Jamaru25 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jamaru25: then change that article. I gave you a link to Britannica and the Louvre. I always research outside Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you feel so free to insult an experienced editor, but if you read Talk:Juba II, you'll find enough sources. Besides the one you mention above, which agrees that Augustus (Octavian at the time), restored Juba II and later gave him Mauretania instead. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No there is no insulation, all respect to you, but I wanted you to discover the truth like I did, I want Wikipedia to deliver the truth not some false information, you're and Editor and Administrator it's your Job to correct what is wrong based on others Editions, I have all this time doing changes based on sources that I have read. But I wants you to answer my question: How Juba II could be a King of a demolished country "Numidia"?! Jamaru25 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jamaru25: Because as multiple sources say Rome temporarily moved it from being a province to being a client kingdom, any further discussion belongs at Talk:Juba II. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Great! But wait until I do a recollection of my sources then I will put them together in one discussion "Talk" Jamaru25 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jamaas9

This sounds like a legal threat. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: thanks, took it to WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this essay and, if possible, add to it, correct it or tweak it?

It's at User:MjolnirPants/nonazis. I've also mentioned it to Drmies and TonyBallioni, at Drmies' talk page. See my final comment and the usual trust I have in your judgement for why I'm asking you to weigh in. Yes, I did in fact copy and paste this from Bishonen's talk page, but it applies to you just as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I stumbled upon this because I’ve been reading your two guys’ pages of late. While I agree that the groups you’ve identified are linked and problematic, I’m not sure I would have chosen to use the blanket term “Nazis”. It may be worth noting that there are links between some of the groups and tenets you’ve noted and Christian nationalism. I would suggest adding a caution, however, that non-Nazis be judicious about use of the term “Nazi” or related terms: only use it when it’s clearly appropriate. Also, @Bishonen: @Drmies: and @TonyBallioni: because I might want them to know how I feel about this essay or guideline. pbp 22:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I also wouldn't have identified all of the groups there as falling blanketly within the no-Nazi scope (i.e. I suppose we could have some fascists who are not disruptive, as much as I disagree with their views.) Normally when administrators block per "We block Nazis on sight and no reasonable admin would ever unblock." we are dealing with people who are putting swastikas or other such imagery on their userpages or who have crossed the line into actively promoting holocaust denial on article talk pages (yes, this has happened of late.)
Wikipedia is not censored, so we give people a very wide berth, but there are lines that when crossed lead to one being shown the door. Declaring oneself to be a Nazi or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show of Nazi imagery/propaganda/mythologizing/insert ilk here crosses the line into disruptive editing because it is telling 70% or more of our readers and editors that you don't think that they should exist. That isn't acceptable, and we block for it. It isn't censorship: it is a private website saying that some actions cross a line that make it impossible to contribute in a collaborative environment, and when that line has been crossed, the person is no longer welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I explicitly defined the term to refer to explicit racists of any sort, while leaving the definition open to editors who may not actually be racist, but who think acting like a nazi is some form of trolling (hint: it's not). I think Christian Nationalists are a separate issue, because their racism is often incidental, and not always even a component of their beliefs.
As for the suitability of the term, generally speaking, those groups I listed are all closely affiliated. They have some members on the fringe who are decidedly non-nazi-esque, and they have many members who (dishonestly) claim to abhor nazism. But for the vast majority, they are just different varieties of nazis. And to be completely frank: I don't much care if a racist who thinks nazis are reprehensible gets offended if I refer to them as a nazi. I really, truly don't, and I strongly advise all other editors not to give a shit about that, either.
Note that I actually left facists out, as there are many decidedly non-racist facists who simply get their political views from fantasy novels.
Finally, I'm open to a different blanket term than "nazi". I think the use is completely reasonable, but I'll be the first to admit that "reasonable" and "best" aren't always the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing is that I have a bit of a worry that this essay may open up a can of worms that you may not have considered. It may encourage editors to label anybody they disagree with as a "Nazi" or similar label (even in discussions that aren't about the topics identified in the essay), in the belief that labeling the other side Nazis will help in getting their way. Maybe I'm crazy and predicting something that's unlikely to happen. But it was a gut reaction I had when I read your idea. pbp 23:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Funny thing: When I saw your edit here, I was at that moment thinking of adding a "what to do if you meet a nazi" section that would consists mostly of advice to chill out and not overreact unless they're blatantly obvious about it. But in any case, I don't really see that as a major worry. Calling someone a nazi for no good reason is still a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: sorry it's taken me so long to respond. And now I've just deleted what I wrote after looking at the talk page of your essay. It's going to take me longer. :-) Doug Weller talk 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!I appreciate your help for the time being

I have a lot of information about Okawa. But I do not have much knowledge of English, so I want you to tell me in future I appreciate your help for the time being I would like to write about the book, but I would like advice

takuya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talkcontribs) 13:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi Doug. I just wanted to let you know about this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troopyl This seems to be a cut a dry case of a WP:SPASOCK who is trying to prime the pump for an article split via vote-stacking and uncivil editing. I would really appreciate your comment on the sock-puppet case. Thank you. Turtlewong (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, is what Turtlewong doing here accusing me of being a sock and not even notifying me. Is this Assuming Good Faith? Doug you have been supporting Turtlewong all of this time, responding on his behalf, will you do the same here? I think Turtlewong can't discuss in Good Faith therefore has to open SPI investigations to stop anything that counters his agenda, yes Turtlewong, by examining his edits has an agenda that is Tigrayan POV'd. I've been reading his edits and they all are Tigrayan POV'd and Anti-Eritrean. Pathetic!Pushkinalex (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Turtlewong: sorry I didn't have time to handle the SPI, but you are correct and Pushkinalex and another account have been blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I get the feeling that this user is going to continue to be a problem in the future. Should I go ahead and undo the blocked sock's edits and merge tag on the Tigrayan page? Turtlewong (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the Talk:Tigrayans and Talk:Tigrinyas a lot the OP comments and replies are from socks. Would it be fine to remove the comments from the blocked socks? Turtlewong (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Turtlewong: Remove comments where there is no reply, strike through where there is, leave a note explaining why. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dont take out ur vested interest on me

The page u reverted was architectured in a coherent manner now .

The page is existing from many years and i gave it the structure.

Who are you talk about sources? They have been referred and also a court citation is referred . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahebzadah (talkcontribs) 18:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sahebzadah: You state here and here that you are a member of the Durrani family. That means you are the one with the vested interest, not Doug. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, therefore I know the truth not those who are putting references out of vested interest to defame. Use ur common sense how can the entire clan be referred as durrani? What about the heirs? No distinguishment ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahebzadah (talkcontribs) 18:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sahebzadah: That response only makes sense if I assume you did not read a thing I said.
Wikipedia has existing policies and guidelines regarding editing with a conflict of interest, assuming good faith from others, citing and identifying reliable sources, and not engaging in original research. You are generally failing to follow those policies. Are you interested in adhering to them or not? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree,however I am questioning the existing material which indeed not neutral and maligning our family. Simple as that. I am quesrioning those references . The page of deoni was now more structured and had references compared to present revertion done due to vengeance by doug.

Its not an original research rather a common sense? Can u answer my question ?

My speciality os durrani empire and their family. I am not like a Anyone citing some.reference and publishing their whims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahebzadah (talkcontribs) 18:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sahebzadah: Your words due to vengeance by doug indicate that you do not understand what "assuming good faith from others" means.
Your words I am not like a Anyone citing some.reference and publishing their whims indicate that you do not understand at all what "citing and identifying reliable sources, and not engaging in original research" means or why we have those standards.
Your own knowledge of your family is obviously original research.
You say you agree, and then you go against those principles almost as if you did not bother to read them. Which is it, do you agree or not? You can't say one thing and then behave in the opposite way. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I notice there's a threat of legal action in this edit. That and the fact that the editor is never going to listen seem grounds to consider blocking him. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly for incompetence. And I love the libellous BLP section heading. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)  Done Saw that, too. That and the general attitude of "standards apply to everyone but me" have me convinced they're never going to be a net boon. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thank you! I appreciate your advice I love you takuya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talkcontribs) 20:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Allen LTA

Hmm I've filed yet another SPI, I'm not too sure if I should keep doing that, suggestions welcome. —PaleoNeonate – 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:I did a start but lack of time meant I had to hand it over, now closed. Good work, don't stop! Doug Weller talk 15:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; I still couldn't get to removing the sock edits however, I just got up to date with watchlist patrol because of a few more busy days and am now leaving again temporarily. I hopefully can start working on it tonight... Any help welcome, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 12:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, done for now, until the next... —PaleoNeonate – 03:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #328

Persian Empire

Hello, thanks for your message. That page, "Persian Empire", is about Empires that centered in Iran and not about "Persian Empires". The Achaemenid Empire and the Sassanid Empire are the Persian Empires, not all of them. Since there isn't any "Iranian Empire" page, then all of the Iranian Empires should be mentioned there. And with 70,777 views per month, that page is full of mistakes and lies. It needs to be edited. Since you have 100,000 edits and you are an active user, i invite you to rewrite the page. Also this page can be useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Persia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir El Mander (talkcontribs) 16:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You added a COI tag. Why this time? The article has not changed significantly. ♆ CUSH ♆

@Cush: I've explained at the article talk page. I should never have removed it. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Funny business at Richat Structure article

Dear Doug and lurkers. Funny things are going on at Richat Structure. First, User Imedscaper adds fringe material about it being Atlantis using a self-published website. Then, it was immediately readded verbatium by User 68.36.130.109. That was reduced to a signle sentence by another editor. However, the claim that “there are theories that the Richat Struture was the site of the lost city of Atlantis.” is still based on a single, unvetted / unreviewed press release as the source of this claim. Paul H. (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. See also Talk:Atlantis#Added "other location" Richat Structure in Mauritania, as related in film by George S. Alexander. Looks as though in 7 years no one has taken this seriously. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor under a new ISP, 86.13.0.173, just restore the reference to Atlantis. Paul H. (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I am finished editing that article for a while. Someone else will have to watch over it.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at his contributions given the mess he made out of Day of Deceit. He's still at it: some of these changes needed to be done in some form or another, but I see for instance that he's stuck in a mention of D of D in. Frankly I'm not terribly inclined to try to reason with him. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I removed that. I'm not happy about the use of the Institute for Historical Review as a source there and at Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. I wonder how many of these articles[9] use it inappropriately. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Cyaxares' article

Hi Doug Weller, i wanted to make it clear that these mountains were in northern Iraq, not only in Iraq, however, since Suleymanieh is cited in the sentence, this already shows clearly that the mountains are in the north of Iraq. Therefore, my edit was not really useful. Thanks for having reverted it. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article fork?

The article Italian Wars was created 2002, whereas user:Barjimoa created French invasions of Italy (Renaissance Wars) in August 2018.

Barjimoa knows of the existence of the Italian Wars article having edited it [10],[11],[12],[13],[14]. Here, Barjimoa redirects from Italian Wars to French invasions of Italy (Renaissance Wars).

I will let you decide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Population of Somalis in Ethiopia (Somalis article)

Hello I am here to kindly request you to roll back the the number of Somali population in Ethiopia which is as of now 8.4 million in the page Somalis. In the page it says 4 million which is not even close to it. Please check the population on National Statistics website and see it your self. SeniorN (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok.let me put it this way, which sources do you got that 4.6 million from? I am from this region and never heard that. Get your facts right. SeniorN (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@SeniorN:, we can only go by what the source says. I have no idea why you don't know what the source is as it's linked in the article and I've read it several times. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I do know what source is and even visited the source link. The link is broken or something it doesn't show useful information. This is the official Consensus you should check it: http://www.csa.gov.et/ehioinfo-internal SeniorN (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@SeniorN: the link is [15] and says "Somali4,581,793" at table 2.2. It might be possible to use your source but as that's just several pages with many pdfs I think you'll need to be more specific, I don't want to have to go through each. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #329

Help please

Doug can you delete my account, or tell me how? I really want out. PiCo (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about that, PiCo. If you're leaving, farewell. I appreciated your contributions. —PaleoNeonate – 14:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@PiCo: that's not possible, sorry. I think it's a shame that you want to, but how about just taking a break? In fact, I could block you for a month. WP:SELFBLOCK describes this as well as a script you can use to prevent yourself from logging in for a predetermined time. I'd rather you choose one of those routes if you need a break. I see you'll have been here 13 years next Sunday, longer than me! I'm sure you'll want to come back at some time. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug, I just reverted an edit by new editor Af.greenspan because of tone and reference (sorry Af.greenspan), so I thought I'd go and see what I could find in JSTOR--nothing. Do you have anything on your bookshelf? Biruitorul, my go-to contact for Romanian Affairs, doesn't seem to be active anymore... Drmies (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: The current source is useless. I can find [16] which says "We have to engage in a strong promotion of national myths and legends(Baba Dochia, DoamnaNeaga, Luana), a fact which impactsour countryboth regarding the tourism industry and the general impression upon the lack of potential of our country". this seems to have something in it.
The main thing I've found from various sources is that there is a "Land of Luana"[17][18] and a Luana cave. I see that a lot of our articles on Romanian myths have no articles on the Romanian wiki, and that it has no article on this.[19]
My takeaway is that I see no signs of importance for a person so that claim seems clearly wrong, and it seems to be more of a mythological land. I'd take it to AfD. Maybe you can get a copy of my first link. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Forgot. My 800 page Dictionary of Mythology doesn't mention anything relevant. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh.

That's a pretty aggressive edit summary right there: [20]. Alephb (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I've done a null edit to show that I meant "lower case", not "loser case". Doug Weller talk 07:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I should have put some kind of smiley face or something to show I was joking around. I thought it was hilarious! Alephb (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that was funny! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am baffled by your edit here. You eliminated 26 edits and you did not even remove the list of names of those who denied authoring the book. The list was hidden, and you made it non-hideable, so I am lost as to what was the goal of your edit. BarbadosKen (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it was a mistake. BarbadosKen (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please check on suspicious user(s)

User 82.39.218.45 has been responsible for a series of edits since April 2017 that were immediately reversed in each case. Last year they were borderline racist in character and in one instance were reliant on statistics from a far-right site. This year there seems to be a new obsession with witchcraft, associated with a reference to freemasonry in a nearly simultaneous edit here. I'm wondering whether these should be investigated as coming from linked addresses. The users don't appear to be serious and are only on WP to push extreme POV. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I agree, but they edit too infrequently for a long-term block. If they start editing regularly though let me know. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

forcefully?

would you need a primary source[21] of him doing so? --Mick2 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mick2: absolutely not, we'd need an attributed independent reliable and quote source. Otherwise it's original research.Doug Weller talk 11:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, then I give up. Icke is mostly ignored. --Mick2 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask for a quick favor?

Could you head on over to User Talk:Ritchie333 and let the IP editor throwing a fit there know that harassing an admin is a bad idea? I've already delivered a warning, and the talk thread has already gone off topic into a bunch of jokes and a political discussion (yeah... we're pretty weird) but the IP won't let up. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not call other editors vandals

I did not call the guy a vandal, and don’t try to intimidate me honey cause it won’t affect me. Also, I know what I am editing because I work in the government, so I know what is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and it was a protected page until recently, and people are starting to change what was written before. D7oom021 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@D7oom021: you called his edit vandalism, which it was not. Read WP:VANDALISM. Also read assume good faith. You sbould apologise.
In any case the religion section is for religions practiced in the country, see United States. Not for the official religion. And I am definitely not your honey, but you were just being rude of course. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Using "Prophet"Muhammad

Thank you for your comment. Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbhard (talkcontribs) 18:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an act of vandalism but I didn’t accuse him I warned

And don’t Compare an Islamic country to secularist country. See Kuwait, Bahrain or any GCC country page. Also, you’re the last person to call me rude. You basically threatened to block me from editing. Don’t act like the innocent guy. D7oom021 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@D7oom021: See WP:NOTVAND. I am telling you as an uninvolved administrator that it was not vandalism -- don't you act like the innocent guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@D7oom021: If you work for the government, you may have a conflict of interest in which case you are strongly discouraged from editing the article. —PaleoNeonate – 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My watchlist

Hi Doug Weller, your talk page has been added to my watchlist when i left you a message few days ago. I would like to keep it on my watchlist in order to fight any vandalism (like i do on other experienced users' talk pages like Oshwah, I dream of horses and some others). If you don't want me to do so with your talk, please let me know and i'll remove it from my watchlist. Wish you a great day. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: please feel free. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller. Please check your mail, i've an important request for you since you're online.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #330

185.104.87.16 constant vandalism

Almost constant vandalism from this user since May 2017. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: thanks, 6 month block. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute - Amir Taheri

Snooganssnoogans deleted Taheri's birth place (Iran) based on his personal opinion that this information is "unnecessary" and then you said the Amazon source is not reliable. They're both conflicting feedback. The information posted on Amazon is Taheri's profile that's printed in all of his 11 published books during the past 30 years by publishers who normally fact-checked authors background before printing their information in books. The information is correct and valid but if it's incorrect and Taheri was born elsewhere then the information can be modified with proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceonearth20 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Peaceonearth20: they aren't conflicting. I agree it doesn't belong in the Gatestone article - it's in his article and that's where people should look for his biographical details. I'm not convinced that publishers don't simply take an author's word for where he was born. I would always want something better. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

2nd chance

Note that you removed an article copied to User talk:Shadowzpaev. While nobody appears to have extended the 2nd chance to that user, you may want to read Template:2nd chance which encourages limited copying of an article into a talk page. If the person follows the instructions, it shouldn't result in a copyright violation. The template isn't mine and I'm not saying you should revert your changes, just pointing out what the template says. --Yamla (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: they didn't follow the instructions at all. I have reverted and added a comment. Thanks for pointing this out. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Split and merge. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #331

/* Contributions to the Article Christianity in East Germany */

Hello @Doug Weller, I have seen that you reverted the information I added to the article Christianity in Germany on the basis that I used a newspaper opinion and a student's comments. First, I used various sources and included in the list of references, not just the two you've mentioned. Second, what you refer to as student's comment is actually a Honors Project that was supervised and published by Illinois Wesleyan University, not a mere comment from an undergraduate student. Third, the source from the Guardian was not an opinion about what might have led to the occurrences in East German, but rather a secondary account of what happened. I hope that you will reconsider your decision after reading this. Thanks.Black thunder9 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black thunder9: As Doug is an administrator it would be wise to take notice when he explains policy to you. I didn't look at all of this, but I would like to opine (as a second administrator) that the Honors Project does not pass our requirements as a reliable source even it is published on a university web page. You can get more opinions at WP:RSN if you want to take it there, but my advice is that you would be wasting your time as this source has no chance of being accepted. We even argue about PhD theses sometimes and accept Masters theses only rarely. Zerotalk 08:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Black thunder9 and Zero0000: (thanks Zero) I can help but you are not cooperating. You say this is part of an educational project but when I and anothere editor about it and wanted to contact your supervisor you simply reverted our posts. You also created an alternative account, now blocked as a sockpuppet, to make the same edit. If we can talk to your supervisor we might be able to help him become involved in our education program and be better able to prepare students. Of course, I'm taking your word that this is part of a project on which you will be marked. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to make it clear to everyone, here's what Black thunder9 wrote earlier on my talk page but deleted: "

Hi, Can you please remove your comment. I understand it but i just did this for an assignment so, once it has been marked i will remove it. So please can you remove your comment so i won't loose marks, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black thunder9 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC) I'm sure I can sort that out if it's true. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

From Araldico69

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Araldico69 (talkcontribs) 11:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Manuel da Silva Rosa page

Doug Weller, I have no understanding as why you keep undoing my edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_da_Silva_Rosa page. You requested the source and that who I provide is the University of Azores own website shows the Manuel da Silva Rosa is a PhD lists on the page under "DOUTORAMENTO EM HISTÓRIA INSULAR E ATLÂNTICA". I still confused what is unreliable source? Maybe just prejudice against? Or maybe your unfamiliar with Portuguese language to read the source page? http://www.uac.pt/sites/default/files/phd_hia_1f_2018.pdf and that NIEHS works not minor, you said minor, for 8 years works from Lockheed Martins awarded highest honors Lithning Award for NIEHS career. What is that needed for the wikipedia article to be made current? Reynatour (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reynatour: the fact that he is studying simply isn't relevant to an encyclopedia. If he does get the qualification it should probably be listed then. We don't list awards unless they have their own article showing that they are notable awards. Do you have a source saying he worked for NIEHS for 8 years? You mentioned a contract. What was the period? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller You throw out the fact that Rosa is finishing his PhD in History as "studying simply isn't relevant". You know what much it is to qualify for accepting into a PhD? Means many years of study and proofs. Means scrutiny of Professors and proof of competency. It is much more relevancy than a IT job. Research of two decades and PhD candidancy and much new information he printed, it is relevant more for the Columbus article than some job he is to pay bills. But it is your wikipedia you know better, all can I do is give you the fact. two decades in research and PhD candidate is not simply IT guy that you keep insetting.Reynatour (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Reynatour I notice that you haven't answered my question about NIEHS. What part of "if he does get the qualification it should probably be listed then" is a problem? Loads of people start PhDs and never complete them. Again, this is an encyclopedia. You don't see that sort of comment in Britannica. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Pls protect Jeddah Tower from vandalism

Hi Doug. There is a kid that needs to be taught a quick lesson that Wikipedia does not tolerate vandalism. Pls protect Jeddah Tower. Thanks. Titus III (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Scientology-related SPA accounts

Hello, Doug Weller. I've been checking the histories of Scientology-related articles, and I've noticed that several accounts, all without a user page, have been trying to tilt Scientology-related articles towards one side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nonchalant77 is one of them: an example of a NPOV-violating edit they made is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=792456261. Granted, that was over a year ago. But his editing, in general, has been largely around softening Scientology's image.

Similar SPA accounts are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Idyllweiss, who hasn't edited since December 2017, also made a painfully non-neutral edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_celebrities&diff=prev&oldid=758310837. Another recent account is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Totempoles007, who made a non-NPOV edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Delphian_School&diff=prev&oldid=850599282.

Another example of a SPA account is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wordsculptor2018, their edits are largely around softening David Miscavige's article - adding that he got a medal from the Colombian Police in this edit, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miscavige&diff=851193834&oldid=851068322.

I apologise if there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, but I fear that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia may be happening again - only from proxies or such. Thank you for reading this. Lolifan (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lolifan: no, it's me who needs to apologise for not having had time today. Is this a response to my post at WP:FTN? Whether or not it is, i suggest copying it there. You should I guess notify the editors. I'll try to find time tomorrow or Monday but there are probably other editors with more expertise with this. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to be sorry - I, myself, have had to delay responding to things sometimes because I haven't had sufficient time. Yeah, it was a response to your post at the FTN: I copied and pasted my post here, with a few minor changes, and used the user template to notify the users concerned, as per your advice. Sorry if I've gotten anything wrong! Lolifan (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #332

Variations of English

Thanks for letting me know, which variation of english is used on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatsuneMilku (talkcontribs) 08:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Irealm

Both of us have warned Irealm (talk · contribs), but the user blanked their talk page and went on to make this edit. The user is clearly using article talk pages as a forum. Of course, it doesn't help if a forum is already being had on the talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, User:Flyer22 Reborn - but as their last edit was an apology and an admission they were manic, I think we should wait to see their next edits. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Doxing incident - revdel requested

Hi. TaylanUB (who keeps making POV edits from a TERF POV to trans-related pages) has posted two names relating to a person who is known as "Tara Wolf" in reliable sources. When Googling the two names that were provided, the only sites that come up are anti-trans hate groups doxing the woman in question. Whereas "Tara Wolf" mainly finds newspaper articles.

The edits which would need revdeling are here: [22][23][24]

(I found you on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests)

Should I additionally raise the incident on WP:AIN, or as an admin are you able to handle this?

Thanks! --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Likely trolling, but

I noticed this recent edit with an apparent random (not targetted) threat of harm. Since WP:VIOLENCE insructions say to use email, which I'd prefer to avoid on WP, I thought I'd just post here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, thanks. Because it was random there's really no need to do anything. If it was aimed at someone in specific, even if unlikely we are asked by the Foundation to report it, instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. You'd have to use email then of course, but only the Foundation would see your email. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Trigonometry

'All or some of your addition(s) to Trigonometry have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder'

I am referring to my edit that was reverted on August 20th 2018. I believe this would be a better source? http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/handle/2264/3082/J_Mar_Archaeol_3_61.pdf?sequence=2

Please refer to the section of 'Compass' on Pg. 2 (62)

Thanks Kgraghav (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgraghav (talkcontribs) 07:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kgraghav: that looks like an interesting source, and I note that the link is not a copyright violation as I feared it might be. You need to use your own words of course. Can I suggest that you use the article talk page to compose your desired text and then let me know so we can discuss it and deal with any problems that you might have missed? New editors often don't understand how we work. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

verification is NOT necessarily truth

When someone edits, it could be because other sources CONTRADICT the posted source(s). Why do you ignore sources you disagree withJonwwwwww (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)?

(talk page watcher) You're mistaken, Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources state, not with what users think is the truth. Also, when some sources contradict others, we should keep a neutral point of view and refrain from giving an undue weight to the sources who say what we like. I would suggest you to read the rules i linked in this post and avoid being aggressive with other users. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Gérard Gertoux

News from the engineer-turned-historian Gérard Gertoux, see here and here, about the recurrent re-date of Xerxes I's assassination. It seems that he managed to get published by what appears to be a respectable source, so I guess the subsequent issue would be the hypothesis being non-mainstream, that's it, fringe (as far as I know, only Jehovah's Witnesses support this date). What could we do? Khruner (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khruner: yes, there's WP:FTN but this is clearly WP:UNDUE. I don't think he even has his PhD yet, by the way, but I could be wrong. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm right about the PhD[25] and have reverted and posted to the editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

on "Paul Wolff Mitchell's self-published article fails WP:RS"

Hello,

I am responding to the following message:

"Paul Wolff Mitchell's self-published article fails WP:RS[edit] The author is a PhD student and this is self-published, when the issues are discussed in peer reviewed journals, that's the time to include them. Also see WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)"

for pages on [Friedrich Tiedemann], [Samuel George Morton], and [Scientific Racism].

The article to which you are referring is not a self-published article. It is peer-reviewed. (See "provenance" section of article here: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2007008)

For this reason, I suggest that you kindly reconsider your revisions, at least on the pages for Morton and Tiedemann, for which it is directly relevant.

Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.198.147 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for missing that. But it still has had no citations, no media coverage, etc. It fails WP:UNDUE. Loads of peer-reviewed articles can't be used for various reasons. In fact, probably too many are used by editors who don't realise we really prefer secondary sources, not the original primary source. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #333

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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Technical move request - Sheikh al-Islam

Hi Doug. As you've worked on this article before, I think you're the right admin to ask about what I think qualifies as a technical move. A subsequently blocked sock has moved the article to Sheikh ul-Islam. The part I have a problem with is the "ul-", which is not a standard transliteration. Could you move it to Sheikh al-Islam or undo the move? Thanks! Eperoton (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eperoton: looks like about 4170 GBooks hits for "Sheikh al-Islam" results and 13,500 for "Sheikh ul-Islam" and close to that, 13,200, for "Shaykh al-Islam". So I don't think I can in all good conscience move it. I think the alternative "Shaykh" should probably be added. Sorry to dissapoint. On the other hand, maybe Shaikhs in South Asia should be moved. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. The "ul-" spelling reflects Ottoman Turkish, and I think the move to the more generic Arabic form is justified, but I'll do an RM. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we get a revdel?

Hello, Doug. I saw you were on the list of admins willing to consider revdels. Any chance you could suppress this: [26]. Someone's phone number appears to be included. Alephb (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Good call; I've revdeled and sent an email to the Oversight list. Thanks! Writ Keeper  01:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #334

Request for comment on description: anti-immigration, low-immigration or both

This conversation in the Center for Immigration Studies has stalled apparently, but so far there are no editors defending the "anti-immigration" position, whereas two editors (myself included) have argued for the "low-immigration" phrasing. How long does this comment period until changes are made? Thanks. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Darryl.jensen: it varies. If a lot of people participated and all argued one way, it might be closed after a week or two. It is withdrawn from the RfC system after 30 days. You do know that people get randomly notified? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was not, thanks Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mande languages

Thank you for your concern about the Mande world or what you do to "keep information accurate". What I added to the page is true and I do not have time and energy to do what you're asking of me(the process of proving this to you). I thought people, including you, might want the whole truth, not a piece of the pie. Well as of 10/14/2018 at least you know now there is another version of how name "Africa" came to life and it's verifiable among people that speak the Mande language. Since it is your job and you care for the truth, why don't you investigate and take care of that for the general public, because; as a user I could have only contributed, but you took it down, which I understood. I hope you also understand my not wanting to take this furthermore.You should also know that the majority of people in the deepest parts of Mande do not have internet access. As a result, they do not get on sites like wiki. If this is a site where people honestly put information that are true then this source should be added and credited. Otherwise, it seems to me that Wikipedia; which I have trusted and used for many years; is not as reliable as I thought. Best, Sylla — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'golo Sylla (talkcontribs) 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@N'golo Sylla: apologies for taking so long to respond. We have two relevant basic policies - WP:VERIFY which " Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." The other is no original research which means that we can't rely on anyone's personal knowledge. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:CaptainCandor

I'm the worst admin ever. (shrug)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

On the bright side, whoever was the worst admin of all time before you is probably relieved to have given up the post. Alephb (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ascension

@Doug Weller: I cannot believe that, as an admin, you would allow such a violation of NPOV and not read the sources.

As a scholar, it is important to read sources without any bias. I may not have extensive theology, as I am not a theologian, but I am a scholar, so it really bugs me when people add their bias:

  1. "Humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, made of clear blue lapis-lazuli"
    • First this is a problem, I mean have you read Exodus? This fails to pass WP:V at the very least
    • The quote "Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky"
  2. "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment"
    • This is borderline NPOV
    • Furthermore, how does this belong in the cultural background section?
  3. "a flat earth centered on Jerusalem in the middle,"
    • Let's read the source: "The ancient Israelites imagined the universe as a tripartite structure: heaven or sky above, earth in the middle, and netherworld below." [27]
    • Nowhere does this assert a flat earth
    • This is also known as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is not allowed on Wikipedia
  4. Dr. Pennington, great guy by the way, would be sorely disappointed in his source.
    • I added a further summary referenced [28]
    • "Heaven in the OT...as a reference to the dwelling place of God" (this completely is gone, but is in my edit)
    • I literally quote Dr. Pennington "Heaven is referred to as the "dwelling place of God"."
    • I also expand with "Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry"
      • This is seen to quote Pennington: "Failure to maintain this distinction by worshipping the created...was strictly forbidden"
  5. Lastly is my entire section on non-Biblical sources
    • Since this is an article on the Biblical ascension, I would want to differentiate to readers what is Biblical and what is not, we should not mix sources together or risk WP:OR
    • I would refer you to the entire section written in Freedman's text here: [29]
    • Not only is there a blatant disregard for what he wrote, he makes a clear differentiation between what is and what isn't in the Bible. Not only this, but for example readers would like to know where the Book of Moses is in, I would refer them to the Book of Moses article and ascribe it to the LDS canon

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dr. Ryan E.: If you have a problem with that particular source, find another source, e.g. search Wikipedia articles about biblical cosmology or flat Earth. Everybody knows that the worldview of the Bible was flat Earth, this is a common place in academic scholarship and it is not our task to right great wrongs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You claimed in your edit summary the discussion was closed. I saw no evidence of that and on that basis I reverted you. It wasn't a judgement on the content, it was a judgement on your rationale. All of the above belongs on the article talk page, not here. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant to add that 76 edits is simply not enough time to understand NPOV. I also find your user page condescending - and confusing because it seems to suggest that only new editors really understand our policies. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Moving this to talk page. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Interviews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interviews. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can you please revdel this IP's contributions. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source(s)?

  • Pierre Lartigue, Rose Sélavy et caetera, University of Michigan, Le Passage, 2004.
  • Judith Housez, Marcel Duchamp: biographie, Grasset, 2006. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: hard to say, especially as I don't know what they are for. Read these in Chrome as it translates well.[30][31]Doug Weller talk 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was checking sources by a "new user" when an more established editor used these two sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

edits on Bhagavad Gita

Thank you, Doug, for reverting my edits on the Bhagavad Gita article and alerting me to the appropriate guidelines, specifically the need to cite sources appropriately. I'm a newbie here and grateful for the guidance. I have written multiple articles in print encyclopedias by invitation, but I'm just learning the ropes here. In this case I was writing from memory without access to my sources, and since I was dealing with some very basic concepts that I thought were commonly known about the subject at hand, I (carelessly and mistakenly) assumed I could come back later and fill in source material as necessary. Now I know better, and I have reinserted my edits along with the appropriate citations. If I'm still missing something, please help me by pointing it out. OneManOfScience (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much question how can i became a an administrator like you in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRV7875640 (talkcontribs) 08:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #335

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC). 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.

GABgab 14:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What about me? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done. GABgab 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


–Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson—

You insist that Tommy Robinson is the common term to use when relating factual information about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Four points

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was the person convicted of multiple crimes not Tommy Robinson. If you tried to check court records under Tommy Robinson you could not discover the cases against him.

No legal change of name or registered stage name has been accepted in UK law for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to be recognised as Tommy Robinson.

Wikipedia is not here to placate or mimic the press but deliver facts.

The article, as it was edited, made it perfectly clear in the first paragraph that he is known as multiple aliases including Tommy Robinson.

I will not be coerced into changing facts by threats of being banned.

(talk page watcher) "Wikipedia is not here to placate or mimic the press but deliver facts." You're mistaken, Wikipedia goes with what reliable published sources say.
"I will not be coerced into changing facts by threats of being banned." Sounds like a battleground comment. Please keep in mind to stay cool and desist from being aggressive toward other editors. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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.BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Defeat of Boudica

Doug, you took part in discussions about the page of "Battle of Watling Street". I thought you would like to know I've changed the title as above. Best. WillE (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Peeta Singh

They are back please see 123.222.129.187 and 1.39.187.147 also please check your email. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)