Wikipedia

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 38

< User talk:Doug Weller
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #189
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Tamils

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Doug, can you lend your expertise to remove some POV from the article. There's a bit of stuff that I don't understand re genetics etc (Abecedare seems to be culling that now), but I've taken the article to FAR as it clearly fails FA standards and there's also some serious issues around sourcing. There are some problems listed on the talk page too, and the article history over the last few months is quite telling. While I don't expect the article to stay as a Featured Article, I'm at least hoping that we can bring it to B standards by the time FARC is done. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, tomorrow. Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, I really don't know the area at all. User:SpacemanSpiff, not sure I can help, sorry. Doug Weller (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for taking a look. My main concern was this chromosome/genetics stuff as I don't understand that, but Abecedare has removed all that as it was fringey. The rest of the article, I can handle, but it's near impossible with the numerous POV pushers, so I'm inclined to let it slide for now and see if we get some other comments before the end of FARC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #173

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Molefi Keti Asante's own words

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"'Afro-centrism' is the normal term, and the one Lefkowitz uses....Remember that this is an article about her, not about Afro-centrism, a term invented by Asante I believe which further makes me wonder why you don't like his term."

Molefi Keti Asante's own words: "If I may be permitted, under the entry on "Afrocentrism" it is claimed that I coined the word in l976. As far as I can tell I never used the word "Afrocentrism," it remains a word used by those who seek to attack Afrocentricity. My book, Afrocentricity, was published in l980.. While I am on Afrocentricity, let me also say that the most significant intellectual movement in the African world for the past twenty years has been the Afrocentric movement and not to have a thorough and intelligent discussion of it is a major flaw in this project.

Robert Fay, the graduate student who wrote the piece on "Afrocentrism" spent most of his time attacking Professor Leonard Jeffries. This leads me to the political agenda. I did not find a bibliography to indicate what was read by the writers before they wrote their entries; Robert Fay surely suffered from the lack of reading."

http://www.asante.net/articles/35/afrocentricity/

'Afrocentrism' is a racist term that racists like Lefkowitz use to disrespect the humanity and history of African people and the work they've contributed to Afrocentricty. And I've heard two things about Wikipeda: 1. That information here has improved and that it's factually correct. 2. That Wikipeda Eurocentric, white supremacist, and run by a bunch of white racists who pretend to be rational. Seems as though I was proven right about number 2. I guess your information is only correct if you're writing about whites. Is it only 'fair' that we go to Anne Frank's wiki page and include what Nazis had to say about that time for 'balance.'

Even though I'm thoroughly disgusted by your false, intellectually limited, lazy, Eurocentric arguments based on Eurocentric "scholarship", I'm not surprised by it. I'm sure no one will EVER know the REAL and FACTUAL name of the movement Asante started from Wikipedia, especially with you around. You should read "Yurugu" by Dr Marimba Ani, because it totally breaks down the white supremacist mentality that allowed you to come on here and attempt to "correct" me about something you know nothing about, especially concerning African culture. It's the same white supremacy that allowed Lefkowitz to create her racist "scholarship."Ta-Seti Kmt (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for getting it wrong about Asante inventing the term - I wasn't certain, which is why I said "I think". In any case, it's clear that you think that you know the Truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and evidently also a racist. I don't know if you ever put your life at risk as I did decades ago in the deep American south, marching with King, having someone try to run me down, but calling me a racist simply because I was wrong about Asante and afro-centricity is a joke. You say " I'm sure no one will EVER know the REAL and FACTUAL name of the movement Asante started from Wikipedia"? Look at article on him at Molefi Kete Asante which says "Asante is known for his writings on Afrocentricity, a school of thought that has influenced the fields of sociology, intercultural communication, critical theory, political science, African history, and social work." You know, I was trying to help you. Didn't work. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re: Your post on my talk page, someone asked questions about the subject. I didn't say anything that wasn't included in the works of Illig and others. in fact, in some cases I tried to sue the exact same wording. I feel that including information from the relevant books, articles etc. is improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your input

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here [1], in order to build consensus on the content before I edit the main page.

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:

  1. Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
  2. How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?

Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you.Code16 ... Logic Bomb ! 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Code16 Sorry, that needs to be agreed on the article's talk page, I really cannot make a determination. Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Understood sir, but I'm only just seeking your opinion as a neutral editor. If you can spare a few minutes it will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ... Logic Bomb ! 13:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pgbrux

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Pgbrux (talk · contribs) has been continuing to edit-war at Atacama skeleton. I've no time to write up a report for WP:AN/EW until perhaps tomorrow. Diffs and warnings on his talk, including two editors which he may be a socking. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. Discussion at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheperds, Sailors and Conquerors, S.L.Dyson

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I beg your pardon about the autors of the book, and I beg your pardon about my English: in fact I am not mother language. But, actually, I do not understand your criticism: what is the problem about the statement: "The nuragic civilization was the first European great civilization west of Minoan Crete". It is a fact: do you know any other bronze age European civilization so "productive" in terms of architecture? In terms of numbers, I mean, but also in terms of technical progress. It is a fact, no archaeologist could have any doubt about this. It is not an idea of mine, it is not an opinion of mine, it is common opinion. Could we say that Greek civilization was the more advanced in its era? I say that is common sense. But if you you think that Wikipedia can't accept such kind of consideration, please, delete it. No problem. With amity Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q (talk • contribs) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #174

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC) 

== Nuragic civilization ==

First of all I described the nuragic civilization as the greater in its era (early bronze age), Vinča culture is more ancient of about two millenies. In second time, the nuragic civilization had produced a site that is inscribed in the UNESCO List of World Heritage sites. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produce advanced architecture. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produced the first sculpture of human body in Europe. Vinča culture had not. If you think that it is "hyperbole", I'm so sorry but you have serious problems about knowledge of European history and European Art History. P.S. In which page of the book of Gary S. Webster there is the statesment" the term "civilization" for Nuragic, "great" is hyperbole"? Thank you Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

history of the establishment of medes

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In respect to the book of history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of history of iran Cambridge vol 2 history of the establishment of the Median Empire was 678 Bc Fahesh (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fahesh Where does it say that? I'll need a quote because it says "The rise of the Median kingdom in c. 673-672 seems to be beyond all doubt: it is already mentioned, side by side with Urartu, HubuSkia and the Land of the Mannaeans in a letter from the royal archives (No. 434) which can be dated from between the years 672 and 669, and later in an enumeration of independent and dependent kingdoms, as well as of Assyrian and Babylonian provinces dating from between the years 669 and 652. Here Media is named at the end of the list, among the independent states, i.e. after Ashkelon, Edom, Moab, Ammon and Ethiopia, and before the Land of the Mannaeans and the Chaldaean Sea-land none of which were at the time dependent on Assyria. The Assyrians, if one leaves out of account a raid which in 660-659 may have affected the outskirts of the Median kingdom, no longer invaded Media, which explains the temporary silence of cuneiform inscriptions on the history of that country. In the absence, too, of authentic Median sources we have to seek information from Greek authors. Of their writings on the history of Media those of Herodotus have been preserved in full, and those of Ctesias only in excerpts and digests which often make his unreliable account seem even fantastic. The names of the Median kings given by Ctesias are indeed Median, but they must belong to contemporaries he knew from his stay at the Persian court at the end of the 5 th century b.c., for they are certainly not the names of rulers of the Median kingdom. In general it is often a hopeless task to try to extract something rational from his narrative. His chronology, as was already proved by Volney at the beginning of the 19th century, is nothing but the inverted and doubled chronological system of Herodotus. Ctesias himself admits that his aim was to refute Herodotus. Herodotus* information, by contrast, is reliable within the limits of what this conscientious author succeeded in rescuing from oblivion, but one must bear in mind that he wrote his history of Asia only from oral tradition two or three hundred years after the events."
And on page 115 "Therefore, between 672 and the beginning of the last Assyro-Median war, that is, not later than 615, the tiny “kingdoms” and independent strongholds which previously had determined the forms of polity on Median territory, were reduced and absorbed. " So in 678 there were tiny kingdoms and independent strongholds. Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

history of the establishment of medes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello in respect to different references history of the establishment of the Median state was 728 to 678 Bc.in respect to book history of medes Igor M Diakonoff median kingdom in 650 BC was a powerful kingdom but change medes to empire by cyaxares was in 625 BC. Please note this: Medes were not persian but were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire. Achaemenid were persian and aryan race and established the second Iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

history of the establishment of medes

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello . The history of beginning and establishment of medes is challenging and in different sources and references are different. But in book of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff (this book is most specific book for history of medes ) Medes were a powerful kingdom in 650 BC and by cyaxares change to empire. Medes were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fahesh, the basic problem is lack of material from that period discussing the Medes. As I think you agree, first there were minor chiefdoms/kingdoms, these were consolidated and under Cyaxares became what some people, but not all, label an empire - some challenge that assumption, eg[2] Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

established median empire

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello dough weller. History of change medes to empire was 625 BC by cyaxares. For this date was agreement in different sources. Please note this: please write in page of medes that median empire was the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. In page medes in Wikipedia Achaemenid Empire mentioned that the first ancient iranian empire. This is wrong. THANKS Fahesh (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fahesh Have you looked at Talk:Medes? Sources there and in the article don't confirm your exact date. And we would need sources discussing "first" and "second" and even whether it was an empire. (sorry, forgot to sign, Doug Weller)

Photo captions

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your message. You can study the own information of the photograh. It's not a neutral colecction.Manu Lop (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Manu Lop Quite possibly, but you can't label it that, you need to get agreement on the talk page to remove the photograph. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It was not my label. It's the original label of the photograh. Please read its own description of the summary in commons, where these words appear originally. You can see also that they all are young, with make-up, as just going out from the hairdresser's. It's not serious :). Manu Lop (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. You're right, dealing with it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, and thank you for your work. I'm not very talkative in English, because it is not my mother tongue : ) Manu Lop (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

median empire

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't understand your scope.please read two books of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of Achaemenid Empire briant peare. About history of the establishment of medes 615 BC in Wikipedia is wrong. At least 650 BC Mede were a kingdom. For example in Wikipedia the history of established ottoman empire written 1399 AC whereas ottoman change to empire in 16th century. Hence the history of the establishment of medes in Wikipedia must correct at least to 650 BC. We must respect to history of countries and don't ignore other thoughts. Fahesh (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How does one edit a Wiki re-direction??!! I have just looked up "Ubiquitous learning" to be told there's a page on it ... but there isn't: clicking on it takes one to "Educational technology" which is (or should be) a vast "page" and anyway has no mention of what I'm searchng for.

I am of course happy to do a para as the start of a page on Ubiquitous learning, but meantime urge that the above error be closed!

Thanks and best wishes - Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Deeson (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Eric Deeson I suggest you talk to User:FeatherPluma first as they created the redirect after merging some material into the target. Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Eric Deeson (with courtesy tag Doug Weller): I recall that you have previously indicated that you have been an editor for a British journal in this general area of interest. If you have some further thoughts, I suggest that the Talk page for Educational technology would probably be a good place to provide input (or you can leave a message on my User talk page).FeatherPluma (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Medes and persian

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks douge weller for last edit in page of Median empire. If you are editor manager page persian Empire I want discuss you.in page of persian Empire in Wikipedia mention Parthian Empire was the second Persian Empire.please note this:ancient persian peoples were Achaemenid and sassanid empires.medes and parthia were aryan race but were not persian. Parthian Empire was established the third ancient iranian Empire after medes and Achaemenid Empire. Fahesh (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How late in the game is it possible to add to an ArbCom Case request...

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

...and how relevant need it be to the particular request? That is, would similar behaviour on indirectly related articles be appropriate to add at the point that people are starting to do word-counts? Anmccaff (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, you can add to a case request until it's actually accepted. Hard to answer your 2nd question without a real example, as cases differ a lot. If you add it and it isn't relevant, it will either be ignored or you'll be asked to remove it. Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it at..no, near.. the bottom of [[3]] Feel free to nuke or correct format. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Doug, I'm frankly disappointed.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let me put a cut and paste clip here of a statement you made on Talk:Oath Keepers:

"I note that the editor tagging this article thinks the ADL and SPLC, Salon, etc are far left & I'm not convinced these tags are in good faith (AGF is not a suicide pact)."

To set the matter of what I think about this article straight, I didn't come to it with preconceived notions. I made up my mind reading what I read. I stumbled on the article thinking this was just another article which needed some structural changes to meet Class C or even B standards but the more I read of recent edits and the more I looked at the available resources the more I came to the conclusions I posted. For instance here is a sampling of the 150,000 Google hits for "oath keepers"+"libertarian" link the more I realized that it was mis-categorized. You've got to admit that it carries some weight when at the top of the search is a Mother Jones article.

What I think about the SPLC is a bit more complex and I'd never edit their article since I'm too close to them. Morris is a friend of a friend and I know two of the younger staffers, nice people and I'll leave it at that since we never talk politics, and they're on my side for some key state litigation unrelated to the article. For the record here is a search with about 36,000 hits for the terms in quotes of "southern poverty law center"+"left leaning" link, or the 16,000 hits for their name plus "far left" link. Salon? I've read Salon since before the internet and if you can read them and not think their opinion is spinning to the left, well then that's your opinion. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #175

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

 

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Requesting a semiprotect on Yom Kippur

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Doug. Quick favor (of a sort I used to ask of Malik, actually): do you mind semiprotecting Yom Kippur, at least through September 23 (one week from today, which is actually Yom Kippur). We tend to get a fair amount of vandalism on holiday articles in the days leading up to the holidays. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, done. Doug Weller (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
TY. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yom Kippur

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It is not the holiest day. Sabbath is, because it is mentioned in the 10 commandments. It is a day of awe originating from the rabbinical auspices. It does hold much importance. Rosh Hashannah, Succot, & Pessach are again more important as they are pilgrimages. Please speak to a scholar before writing about this or other festivals. May I suggest Rabbi Mirvis, who is chief Rabbi of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.85.202 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And you're telling me this why instead of asking for an edit at the article's talk page? I'm not editing the article. Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi.the truth is that the statement i made was based on my own scholarship (i can read the original Hebrew).I included the link by way of explanation not the scholastic merits of the author.Can you please explain what makes a source acceptable to you.For instance if i link a similar article by someone with a degree in biblical studies would that be OK? Juda15 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Juda

OK.Thanks for your time.I simply thought that my statement which was basically a casual remark on the plethora of opinions one finds when dealing with this subject,obvious.I mean it would be pretty hard to find a quote like that .I believe the article has a very biased approach.Some sections (such as Divine battle vs divine speech)present as fact something that can easily be refuted ,or at the very least interpreted differently. There is no attempt at neutrality at all. NO opposing sources are cited, despite it being a rather controversial subject.I think this needs really needs to be cleaned up.Juda15 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)juda

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #176

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Medes and persians, revisited

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was surprised that no damfool pointed out that one man's Mede is another man's Persian. (Up til now, that is.) Anmccaff (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Because scholarship has moved on from the Bible (and the 19th century)? Doug Weller (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the collapse of Brooklynese and Yat. (And RP, of course; goil and gal both relate back higher status sociolects for girl.) Anmccaff (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Attributed to “the 20th-centry literary wit George S. Kauffman” at thefreedictionary, citing a book called Endangered Phrases by Steven D. Price.—Odysseus1479 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On unblocking

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Doug,

I noticed this and would like to comment that I indeffed them for the legal threat but also stated in the SPI that they were indeed also guilty of socking. If anything, the block should be converted down to 72 hours for the socking if the retraction of legal threats is accepted. I also noticed that you didn't unblock them. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ah, total mistake. I was trying to fix the formatting mistake (an unnecessary space between the 2015 population estimate and the reference) by doing control+f to find the population section (hence the "pop"), and must have accidentally typed that without noticing it when I did the control+f. I now fixed the original formatting error I was trying to. Hah!

Gossamers (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT vandalism !!!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I didn't vandalized Stormfront article. Read the Stormfront talk page for more information about my editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Laurent de Lyon, I never said it was vandalism. It is however a misunderstanding of our guidelines and policies. And if you delete anything in the article in the 24 hours after your first revert you'll probably be blocked - whether your edits are right or wrong. Read the link please. Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

White nationalism article

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I have figured out how to explain why I don't like how the article is written. Have you ever read the books of George Orwell? If yes, you might remember the term doublethink. People are supposed to have double standards. While British nationalism are [British] nationalism, Chinese nationalism are [chinese] nationalism, but white nationalism is a violent supremacist organization set out on crusades to kill and oppress. This isn't logical and nationalism don't need to, and very seldom does, contain anything else than kinship. 129.177.179.164 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So what if he is a journalist?

Are you the protector of the prestige of the Aztecs.

These are historical facts.

I will just post them again, and again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perico~enwiki (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Journalists are not subject to peer review and therefore their articles should be used with care. And I wouldn't post again and again if I were you. You'll end up blocked (and later banned) and then what would have been the point of all those posts? --regentspark (comment) 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Moroccan genetics

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I notice you've stuck your nose in there. Thanks, but can you advise on the endless reverts by the anon at 47.x.x.x IP addresses? The article has been semi-ed before over this business; and, as is sometimes the case, I have no idea if I'm edit warring or reverting vandalism. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I'm not sure what the scientific racism is that you've mentioned, probably because I haven't really read the article, I came there via the author of the map. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sections in the anon's preferred version from "Physical Anthropology of Moroccans" on down are cited to or quotes from Carleton S. Coon, a post-war "scientific racist". His factual observations are somewhat trustworthy, but his analysis is perhaps now not regarded as entirely reliable.
As far as I can make out the other citations in this section are more or less spurious. It's also a mass of incoherent Caps Disease nonsense.
More generally the page oscillates between the 47.x version and the version everyone else is editing. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinkbeast thanks, will look at it. Do I take it this is a formal request for protection? I know about Coon. I once corresponded with someone who worked with him, who confirmed Coon's actual racism. Doug Weller (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I would be pleased if you protected it, if you feel I have acted appropriately - but it's only a request if you think it's a good idea too, if that makes sense.
I mean, theoretically one might engage with 47.x but as far as I can see they've never discussed their edits (except perhaps in late 2014 when they may have been Calssico. Hence, I think that would be futile but if you think we should go through the motions first, fine. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw that it was protected last year twice for apparently the same reasons. I've protected it again for a longer period of time. As I said, I was only concerned about the editor and their images, not this article, and wasn't going to do anything more until you posted here. I don't see any other solution as it appears to be a dynamic IP address, and as you say the IP can always use the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
A user has recently inserted the same material into the Morocco article itself and tried to erase the talk page when I brought up the issue at Talk:Moroccan genetics. I have no idea whether this material is appropriate in general or not – I have no knowledge of the subject matter – but it certainly doesn't seem appropriate for the country's page. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
And (same IP range) Demographics of Tunisia, right in the middle of a content dispute (the latter part of which can be dealt with normally). Pinkbeast (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Cobblet, User:Pinkbeast, looks like there may be some socking. It might be SPI time, now or soon. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've considered it, but until Cobblet's new version turned up, they just seemed to be from an astonishingly wide dynamic IP range. It's easy for me to say it since I'm not doing the work, but (as discussed on the Morocco talk page) I fear that Cobblet may need to do a bit of digging to see if the edits are a) similar and b) bogus. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #177

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Regarding recent activity here

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
 
  A beer on me!
For when you see what's been happening on this page and your user page lately. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We really need to find something stronger than beer for this business. I was thinking of bourbon... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have some nice maple-infused bourbon. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the potato-chips. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, the fellow just wanted to say DW is a prince among men, had the n key stick, and the spillchequer took it away from there. Anmccaff (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

IP edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Like I stated on the talk page, I didn't have access to my browser's password saving feature on a different computing device. I never edited "at the same time" as Fyddle claimed on the talk page. This morning after waking up I talked on the different talk page without logging in to Wikipedia only because I had just woken up and weren't at my best. That's the "same time" he posited, even though it happened 10 hours later. After noticing the mistake, I corrected it. Other than that, there's a clear timeline of when I had access to my password again. My password consists of both letters and numbers, like it should. In addition, I very early on claimed that I will soon be back on my user account. Oh, and there were two who undid my edits which I simply reverted back once each as in two in total, not in a row and half an hour apart and with great descriptions of why their undo is unjust; which still I believe is the bad edit behavior. In the edits after that I drop some bits I were fighting for or change the wording to work towards concensus progressively. I also declare the changes I have made to my own stance in the description of the edit. This is a much more realpolitik-like way of finding concensus. But even regardless of that I were always very active on the talk page. But I'll take the recommended break from editing. All of this stresses me out greatly. I will continue talking to prove my point, though. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Neophyte with question about addition to star of Bethlehem page

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Dear Doug- 

    Thanks for all your hard work for so many years!

On the Star of Bethlehem page, under "explanations", it crossed my mind that a mention of the Hebrew (and Biblical) cosmology would help to explain the star story. In the Star story, the star leads the wise men, first to Jerusalem (west), then to Bethlehem (south). In our understanding today, No actual astronomical event could do this - especially since it would rise and set, being in different directions at different times. Plus, an actual star would incinerate any house it "hovered over" - as would be needed if a real star were to designate a single house or neighborhood.

However, when viewed as the writer (and his readers) would have viewed it back then, it makes more sense. The Bible is clear - especially in Genesis 1 but throughout to Revelation (6:13, etc) and many more, that the writers assume the ancient hebrew cosmology of a flat earth under a domed sky, with the stars as little lamps attached to the dome (I can provide references/scholarly explanations if you like). In that cosmology, it would have been easy for a star to move along a little ways above the earth, guiding wise men wherever, and then designating a single house with ease.

It seems to me that such an addition would benefit the the Star of Bethlehem page, but I'm a newbie (I've donated, but done no editing I can remember). Do you think I should try to write such an addition, or what? Thanks- Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.2.113 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jon, off to bed now, but my first thought is that our articles are built upon what reliable sources say about a subject - see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We don't allow original research (we've got a policy on that also, see WP:NOR. But I'll nose round tomorrow as there must be something about this in the academic and theological literature. And the thanks are much appreciated, I get a lot of the opposite! Doug Weller (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(not sure if I'm editing this right, sorry) Hey, I just saw the note about you being on vacation - sorry! If you want to leave this until you are back, let me know (and sleep well tonight). Anyway, the hebrew cosmology (as adapted from the Ancient Near East "ANE" cosmology) is well established in the scholarship, and I certainly don't suggest using original research (often a euphemism for "stuff I made up"). Here's one link -see the top left of page 189. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hKAaJXvUaUoC&pg=PA189&dq=Bible+Cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jvHuTu_wDcStiQeFz62dBw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=Bible%20Cosmology&f=false

many others our out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry, real life has taken over, maybe tomorrow, or Sunday. Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
All good.  : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Doug dropped me a note about this discussion. I recognize the validity of some of the claims made above, to the effect that (if I got it right) the phrasing used to describe the star of Bethlehem incident is maybe such that might reasonably be expected by individuals who held the cosmological views the Hebrews had at the time, and given their own views it is likely they would have phrased their description in the simplest way possible consistent with what was then the "best scientific evidence available". And the old Hastings Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics has fairly long article on old Hebrew cosmogony and cosmology, so there might well be basis for an article on that topic, although I don't see one here yet. My first inclination would be to start development of an article on Hebrew cosmology, maybe even substantively using the text from the Hastings ERE which is in the public domain and can be used with proper attribution, as long as you also check with other, more recent sources, on the topic to see if the beliefs there are still current today. If you want, contact me on my user talk page and I can try to help gather together materials for such an article. But, in general, I think it would probably be better to develop a main article on Jewish cosmology first, incuding pretty much everything central to the topic there, and then once that is done it would be easier to see how to summarize the relevant material in the Star of Bethlehem article. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that makes sense. I'll see if I have an old account, if not make here, and work along the plan you laid out. I'll write next on your talk page. have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I wrote on your (John Carter's) page. - Jon Equinox88 (talk)


Wikidata weekly summary #178

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Citing books

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Doug;

I was working to cite from a book, when my edit kept disappearing. It was part of the history section of the page, and just kept losing the save before I could save the sources cited. Thanks for the message, was not my aim, my aim was just to add new information from this book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xatian11968 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 August 2015


Mile- I don't know what you mean by "agreement". There are different types of miles listed on that page. I am only trying to contribute. Isn't that part of what wikipedia great, that anyone can be a part of it? Please Doug, I will show you kindness. Please show me the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbasbro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bubbasbro, anyone can be part of it but it's a collaborative exercise, and if several people are reverting you, or I see calling your edits vandalism, ignoring them and continuing with the same behavior, especially when you are being warned/advised by senior editors and Administrators (who have the power to block editors if necessary), it would be wise to start discussing your edits before repeating them. Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Altlantis LOCATION site.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Doug,

Look, I am unsure what you don't want me to do...

1. just post research...

or

2. just use the sources (Not Dr. Otto Muck but Ignatius Donnelly or other) that they want me to use.

So, how about this.

Can we put the link back in to the discussion at Wiki University that I just posted to today? That way, people could go there if they like. I have a potential author looking at this. There may even be a book here.

The research that I posted was recent, done by the University of the Azores. There are a lot of geologic abnormal phenomena occurring in this area, things that geology cannot yet explain, such as why does the magma samples from the Azores volcanoes get less like that from the mid-Atlantic Ridge as you go toward the mid-Atlantic Ridge?

I explain my theory of what is going on on Wiki University. But from the Atlantis location site, well, you cannot get to Wiki University from there.

SO, to keep peace, can I please have a link from the Location Atlantis site to Wiki University Atlantis supervolcano site where I post a lot so that interested readers can get there?

Please let me know. E-mail me at jgarner812@gmail.com This has already taken more time than it needs to. IMHO, currently, the Atlantis Location site is little more than a support device for what is going on at Thera in the way of research/excavation and the volcano there. But it is only 1 volcano. There are many in the Azores, not to mention the triple plate conjunction with the supervolcano caldera and Mantle Plume feeding it...

Thanks!

Your friend and mine,, LOL...

John G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYLEIGH22 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Threats, Harassment, and Defamation

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a cease and desist message. You just left the following harassing, threatening, defamatory message (in toto) on my talk page. You did not explain to what your threat and harassment referred, but it doesn’t matter, since you were lying and defaming ME, to begin with. I haven’t added “unsourced” or “defamatory” content anywhere. That makes you a liar and abully.24.90.121.4 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Civil and WP:Legal would cover your threats. Suggest that you immediately retract this before you get WP:Blocked from WP:Editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I see the IP has been blocked. Can you defame an anonymous person? I'd think it would be pretty hard to show damage. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cline and the Lost Ark

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His chapter was about speculation on possible locations of the lost ark - his note about no mention by the Babylonians simply means that they did not view it as a "lootable treasure" and that is about all the weight he gives to the "contemporary" bit. It is not a "learned treatise" by the way ... it is aimed at the "popular market" here. Collect (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Celtic Orthodox Church

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

I have added advert and unreferenced templates to this article and they have been deleted by a priest of the church. Can you take a look please and see what you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stalker butting in here: I took a look at the page, and I have to think that I saw some sort of reference to it in one of the books in the various prospectus and lists of encyclopedic articles I put together, but I can't be sure which name might have been used in those articles. I don't really doubt its notability, but it might take a few days to find whichever source mentions them.
By the way, have I mentioned how happy I am you are getting all these messages, and not me? Thankyouthankyouthankyou. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, User:John Carter. The 'references' are actually notes, and this is an unreferenced BLP article as it mentions living persons. The 'advert' template should have been accompanied by an explanation on the talk page. Change 'references' to 'notes', replace the templates, comment on the talk page. I'll warn the editor. Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There's an obvious COI and it's the editor who added the promotional stuff to the lead. Feel free to strip it out. I suggest taking it to COIN so other editors are aware. I think being an official of the church is quite different from being a member in terms of COI although others may differ. The only problem, by the way, with a no references tag is that it's so general. But you are free to remove non-referenced dubious stuff at any time. Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This editor also added obvious copyvio with this edit which copied material from [4] - used the Wayback url to show that the source is earlier than the edit. There's a whole group of similar badly sourced articles:

Hugh George de Willmott Newman - a few sources, but what is "Bisho Persson" - hardly a verifiable source.

Leon Chechemian - hm, it does say "According to Bertil Persson, "Checkemian has not, as has been stated, been consecrated a Bishop in The Armenian Catholic Church." - perhaps that's our Persson - note the OR just after that line.

There are more. The use of notes is particularly bad as they seem to be often just OR trying to prove things.

Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What worries me is the What links here page - much too long I suspect. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That's because of [[Template:Protestantism]] which has a link to it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hell, Template:Protestantism was created by Paul Bedson, a fringe editor now blocked who took liberties with his sources. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I meant Leon Chechemian. Sorry, Johnbod Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Or rather User:7&6=thirteen. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of other editors who contributed to that template. In any event, his involvement only proves that even a stopped clock (analog) is right twice a day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Also Template:Denominations of the United Kingdom, which I have given a long-overdue springclean. The sensible note requiring 50K UK adherents was being ignored. I don't see that Template:Protestantism did link there in fact - it certainly should not. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Still haven't checked the encyclopedic sources, but, at least from looking over what I can find in Google searches, I'm not seeing much which indicates to me that this group is really even notable. Now, I do know of a reference book which has shortish articles on all the bishops of unorthodox or heretical groups which have been ordained by Christian bishops (yes, really), and it might be that the presiding bishop is himself notable as per that source and any sources it may have, but, without having looked yet, I have to say that I really can't be sure even of notability, although, honestly, given the mountain of reference works on religion, the chances of it being notable are probably good. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Cf. Episcopi vagantes.—Odysseus1479 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You are probably right - this one claims only 2 UK clergy (far from full time I suspect). I don't really care so long as they don't go bigging themselves up in other contexts like templates. One might roll a whole bunch of these miniscule little "groups" into a single article - Churches without adherants perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually only know of a very few of groups of that type,, maybe only one. Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions in at least one of its editions mentioned a group which distributed literature under its name, but whose only apparent member was the individual who distributed the literature. If I remember right, it may have been a Jehovah's Witnesses splinter group. I'll check for relevant entries later in the week. There are a few sources which mention the group available on google, but I don't see any so far which would clearly establish specific notability. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #179

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any particular reason why the links you just removed from Kensington Runestone aren't reliable? I'm just curious because the content of those pages has important implications with regards to the subject of the article.

Thanks,

Mizzou1993 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

F* and Sengupta source

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Care to explain why you moved Sengupta source under F* and yet claim it's copyvio? what does that source have anything to do with F* found in China? Entire study in about South Asian population. I have pointed it out before, the source you removed is mentioned in the given source, see under "Indigenous and Exogenous HGs Represented in India" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.201.235 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Xerxes I

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Doug Weller, sorry to disturb your holiday. I have an issue here on Xerxes I's talk page and I would be very grateful if you can tell who is wrong and who is right, and why. I don't want to risk of being banned but I may already be wrong by don't giving up. Thanks. Khruner (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #180

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

twinkle use

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

isn't twinkle use reserved for vandalism? (i saw you use it to revert an edit that was no vandalism, like JzG.) am i missing something?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My understanding is that the improper use of "rollback" is seriously frowned on, and the right to use it can be withdrawn, whereas using Twinkle has no such restrictions, (it gives rollback functionality without the right). I think this is because reverting is sometimes the beginning of edit warring, and rollback does not give the opportunity for an edsum, whereas Twinkle does. It's all about behaviour. Just my 2p. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Roxy the dog™ so twinkle can be used to revert whatever one wants to revert.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In any case I have no idea what this is about, a diff or a page link would have been nice. And obviously I try to leave edit summaries for everything but vandalism, you just need to look at my contributions to see that. I don't recall interacting with this editor. Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "have no idea what this is about". sorry if my question was unclear. Let me rephrase: can twinkle be used to revert whatever one wants to revert? take your time with your answer. i saw you are away.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I know User:Wuerzele either, and don't know what prompted the question, but please correct me if my understanding isn't correct. (Your edit box did say you'd not be easily contacted due to hols?) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Wuerzele not away anymore. If Twinkle is used to roll-back a good faith edit, an edit summary should be used. You appear to be suggesting I've failed to do that - I'd appreciate the diff or article you have in mind. That's true of just using undo was well so far as I'm concerned. Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™ this thread has become confusing. Yes, it's all about behaviour, and Twinkle itself can be removed and editors banned from using it if they use it disruptively. I've made the point about edit summaries for good faith edits, but of course it can be used to rollback anything so long as it's used properly. Sorry that I forgot to remove my edit notice.Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Twinkle itself can be removed and editors banned from using it if they use it disruptively": User:Doug Weller, are there any data about how often twinkle has been "removed", as you say, frequency over WP's history? is twinkle "removal" an admin decision or an arbcom decision, or both ? --Wuerzele (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The place to ask for assistance is WP:HELPDESK or somewhere over at WP:Twinkle which I see you are editing. By posting on a user's talk page you are giving the impression that the particular user has some responsibility for Twinkle, or has not used it properly. Please give a diff showing what you believe is a problematic edit by Doug Weller or stop insinuating there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

British Israelism revert

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No problem - and you are quite correct - although it frustrating when an arguement (even one properly cited) has clear flaws, limitations or is just wrong. Here it was just a limitation , caveat that was needed. As I assume you can appreaciate. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding old e-mail

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I sent you an e-mail some time ago regarding some external matters. I am far less than sure how the matters involved in it can be addressed now, and would appreciate any input you might be able to offer. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #181

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Why you should include Southeast-Asian aswell

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

" Kennewick Man Powell said that the Ainu descend from the Jōmon people who are an East Asian population with "closest biological affinity with south-east Asians" rather than western Eurasian peoples".[24]

Source: Powell, Joseph F.; Rose, Jerome C. Chapter 2 Report on the Osteological Assessment of the Kennewick Man Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick). Retrieved September 10, 2011.

It doesn't make sense to include only south asians. - 77.98.238.98 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir you are right I apologize

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sir I am sorry if I seemed that way, The truth is you are right however I still feel that that person that I mentioned isn't really trying to help the Wikipedia cause. But the truth is it seems you have noticed this whether you agree or not I am not certain. If you would like to edit my comment that it be civil, than I will accept it. Thank you for your work in Wikipedia :-) Sadya goan (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not an apology, that's another personal attack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were going to delete it? OK I removed it (I not available every day so wasn't able to do this till now). OK so let's make it clear, if I feel in the future that this happens again how do I preside?? Again Thank You for all your effort. Sadya goan (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Oh I realized.. never mind I deleted it now Sadya goan (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) George Ho at the moment it seems too infrequent to bother. Doug Weller (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Doug Weller (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What in that I praised you and some of your colleagues whom I still trust was not clear? Yes, I praised you for doing nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, y'know, while I as an individual think Doug pretty much has earned all the praise he can get, I'm really not that sure praising people for doing nothing is really such a hot idea at this point, with so much content missing or poorly developed and all that. ;) John Carter (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You still speak of content. Did you miss that content is not relevant, relevant is who likes whom (or not)? If you say that you created quality content with as many women as men, you get blocked for a month (if people who count don't like you). I thanked six arbitrators today for doing nothing. I can't talk to the others without being unkind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seasons Greetings,

Hi, i obsrved you have supported article Anthropology of religion well enough. I am looking for support for a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. At this stage, undersigned seeks your help specially to improve defenition and lead sections of the article.

Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This request is made to you since culture related topics may be of intrest to you.

Thanking you with warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Talk:Jedediah Smith

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jedediah Smith. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller, and I really appreciate your tips on how to make my Wikipedia article edits better! Wikipediauser993 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993

Wikidata weekly summary #182

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Sorry, and thanks

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good evening Doug Weller, sorry I did not mean to waste your time in my talk page, but obviously the notification has arrived to you despite my correction. And I thank you for the kind words, I greatly appreciated it.. Khruner (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

hi there, how can i revert it

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hi there, I think I made mistakes in editing the page, do u know what part I've not quoted?

User:Omoleon, click on the tab that says history on the article page and you can see what I reverted. I've replied on your talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Albert Stubblebine

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAUb2AEIoU&feature=youtu.be&t=52m20s - Stubblebine in this Sept 2013 interview states that the information that was in that interview that is used to character assassinate him is used to make him look like an idiot. Various "sources" on his article are intended to make him look bad solely because he questioned the 9/11 pentagon attack. The entire article needs to be re-written to be more biographical than a smear campaign. Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RE:It's ok for editors to blank their talk pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Dough
I totally agree with you, but was an accident! I wanted to leave a message on his talk page, and edited the whole page. Before I saved, he canceled his page, so I got an edit conflict message. I did not want to lose my message, so I used the back button and saved everything. You can check the times of the edits about that. :-( As you say, there is no reason to restore what the others write, and besides that, it is prohibited! MEA CULPA MEA CULPA MEA MAXIMA CULPA. :-) . Alex2006 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Alex2006 Thanks for the explanation, no problem!. Doug Weller (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the whole procedure was counterproductive, because this guy blanked again the whole page, this time WITH my message, so I don't think that he could read it. :-( Alex2006 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Analects

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What do you think about this edit to Analects? [7] Corinne (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, WP:ERA applies here. This seems to have been a BC article. Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I wasn't sure how to figure out whether it was an "AD/BC" article, that is, how far back to look. Corinne (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #184

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

Can you take a look at this articles talk page and give your input?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This has been going on too long and need more of a senior editors input. I was going to possibly try and clean up the article with new sources and possibly changing the name based on suggestions listed in the talk page, but it may be a waist of time as the edits may be reverted. Please give your input on the talk page if possible. ThanksLRappaport (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Current ArbCom case Reply

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd just like to point out that I was not admonished in [[8]]. The result was that my action was "suboptimal" (which most of the parties disagreed with, but hey) but it was not an admonishment. I would appreciate it if you considered that in your comments on the current case. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion about P.Sykes

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hey Doug, how are you doing these days? Hope fine! :-) I was wondering, what is your opinion about Percy Sykes and using his publications in history-related articles? Definite no-go, right? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

LouisAragon Busy obviously! Generally, except of course his tales of his personal experiences might be relevant at times, and there might be other uses of his publications - but as establishing facts, no. 19:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Haha, yeah I know you always are. Yep, I expected that, just wanted to double check up with you. :-) Heh. Bests and take care Doug. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: @Doug Weller:, excuse me for re-pinging you in such a short period of time, but I wanted to inquire about something regarding this edit an user has made. You're better versed with such things than me. Isn't it, if you check the dropped reference, part of his name rather than his title? His title seems to be sultan, not the title in question. Therefore it should be reverted, in good faith, I believe. Can you find me in this? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your cooperation

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Sintra_Arunte-Bronte --Muzammil (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Shaolin Monastery

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The Shaolin Monastery article states, “In the past, many have tried to capitalise on Shaolin Monastery fame by building their own schools on Mount Song. However, the Chinese government eventually outlawed this; the schools were moved to the nearby towns. However, as of 2010, the Ta Gou kung fu school, one of the largest martial arts schools in China, owns and practises on land below Shaolin Temple. Current 31st Grand Master of the fighting monks is Shi De Yang, a disciple of the late abbot Shi Suxi.”

My first reaction was a bit of shock. In a nutshell this paragraph says that many schools tried to “captialise” (sic) on the original Shaolin Temple (original historical entity) but the government outlawed this with the exception of one school which “practises” (sic) below Shaolin Temple. Then out of the blue it mentions Shi De Yang, giving the impression that he was one of those who broke away from the Shaolin Temple and started the the Ta Gou kung fu school attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Monastery fame.

Shi De Yang is too important of a character in the Kung Fu world to leave this vague statement. "Shi De Yang continues to reside in the Shaolin Temple, absorbed in his studies and teaching there and is head master of the fighting monks in the Temple. However, he has added the management of his external school, Shaolin Wuseng Houbeidu, to his duties."[9]

Either this should be explained or references to Shi De Yang removed. It is important it be realized he is still part of the Shaolin Temple.

We could go back and forth adding and deleting, but to save time would you please carefully study my position and make the necessary changes. It would be much appreciated.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CWatchman I've turned your copy/paste from the website into a quote. We shouldn't be using affiliated websites. In addition, there's no information on the website proving it's official, and the tone (absorbed in his studies) is promotional. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And as the article says there are no martial arts schools at the temple, I see no reason to mention any martial arts schools not at the temple. Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And the way it was written could easily lead a casual reader to assume Shi De Yang was grandmaster of one of the schools attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Temple. It was just poorly put together.

By the way, what is Wikipedia's position on English and British spelling? I am assuming "capitalised" and "practises" was either added by a Brit or was a misspelling by someone in the states. Just curious. CWatchman (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CWatchman Glad we agree. See WP:ENGVAR. But that's a bad example as it is a spelling used in both countries and in dictionaries from both, or at least both are used in the UK. Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #185

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #114

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

Unsourced version

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Why exactly did you revert the article Ambrosius Aurelianus to a unsourced version and eliminated sourced additions? Dimadick (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, I wouldn't do that deliberately - ie I wouldn't revert and then protect. I was on my iPad and didn't notice I'd done that. My protection doesn't endorse either version. Of course both of you really should have been blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug, Dimadick, who thinks the execrable Rodney Castleden is a reliable source, has added in numerous factual errors and blatant lies to the article (like Gildas saying of Ambrosius "though brave on foot, he was braver still on horseback."; nowhere does Gildas say this!). Please revert back to the previous version of the article, which has been relatively stable for years.Cagwinn (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug, Dimadick has responded on the article's talk page and it is clear that not only does he confuse fringe authors with genuine scholars, he is not even familiar with the primary sources! Please revert the article back to it's previous state. If there are any references lacking in the older version, I will supply them. The article cannot stand as it currently; it is now filled with errors and outright lies. Cagwinn (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually most of the previous version of the article provides no sources, primary or not. I have already asked you to provide sources for it. Be my guest, add them to the article. One think I have not done is claim ownership of the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about! There are only two primary sources for Ambrosius, and they are Gildas (the main source) and Pseudo-Nennius (who makes use of Gildas, plus adds in some snippets of chronicle material and folklore), both of which are cited in the previous version of the article, along with secondary sources such as Bede and Geoffrey and reliable, modern scholarly sources (Chadwick, Woolf, Gidlow, and Fleuriot are all respectable scholars). You need to leave this article alone if you unclear about the sources. Cagwinn (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies on Zheng He revert

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have Zheng He on my watchlist and I noticed you had reverted a change to it this morning. In checking out the diff I made an error, thinking it was an invalid reversion (blame it on a lack of coffee). On reexamination I realized my mistake and undid my mess (reverted my reversion of your reversion - whew!).

In any case, your fix still stands and I wanted to apologize if I caused any confusion.

KNHaw (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KNHaw no problem, and I appreciate your commenting on it here. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24, 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, can you please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LouisAragon/Archive#23_November_2015 . I have mentioned you there, regarding your this message to LouisAragon (talk · contribs). I am 100% convinced that he is engaged in active sockpuppetry (both the IP and his user page indicate Netherlands as the location). This lengthy writing about me by User:Human10.0 and this lengthy writing about me by LouisAragon make it pretty obvious that both is one and the same person. The following confirms it, LouisAragon stated to someone in 2014: "You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you as you're an Afghan" and now Human10.0 states to me at the end of 6th paragraph: "(I say "your nation" because you are Afghan).". He is not WP:HERE to help the project but to sock and fight, and fill Wikipedia with his nonsensical opinions.[10] Btw, I never revealed to anyone my nationality. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem user.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I was wondering if you could consider User_talk:210.3.38.33's behaviour. You have blocked him before and his behaviour shows a long systemic abuse of the project, in fact it appears almost all of his edits are nonconstructive or abusive. I seem to have attracted his abuse of late, and as this is a work computer several others may cop his unwanted attention so I don't want to publicly request some kind of big fandangled inquest or .. idek what the proceedure is but I'm avoiding even logging in because I don't want this grommet to fixate on my user account and find my social networks from it, etc, but yeah the guys spamming articles with stuff like 'kkk jesus white power' or other insightful gems such as here here he randomly adds 'anal sex' to sentences, or arab two girls one cup among others. This has been going for years it seems.

The dude's a failtroll. He has a history of several years of abusive posts. And yet he is still allowed to edit freely. Please, please re-visit your ban on his IP, it was righteous first time around it's just unfortunate it ended. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Really sorry, but the edits are too intermittent now to legitimately block - and too few - easy enough to control. Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirection?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I'm Kmp42, I am new to editing Wikipedia, and am only editing anthropology pages for a graduate level class. I do not know how to go about redirecting the Genetic anthropology page to the Molecular anthropology. The genetic anthropology page should be redirected because it technically is the same field as molecular anthropology. I was hoping you could help me with this, but is will try to redirect the page by myself. I am not too familiar with most of the editing and maintenance processes..... Thank you. 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmp42 (talk • contribs)

Answered on your talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

166.170.48.56

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Doug Weller, AraCrap (166.170.48.56) wants to play edit war but I don't want to. Seriously speaking, is it possible to put up some temporary IP-range filters? Or maybe introducing a rule in ClueBot which can recognize and revert his stupid adds? It's ridiculous that nobody could do anything with this. Khruner (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, maybe User:Favonian has some suggestions. Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An edit filter may be in the making, per the discussion at User talk:NeilN#Ararat arev again. IP-wise, he's thinly spread, so I doubt range blocking is a good option. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Favonian Agreed. Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Narmer under attack

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would you please semi-protect Narmer? some 166...- IP is trolling there. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it. --NeilN talk to me 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARARAT

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is currently ruining the page on Ancient Egyptian architecture. Could you protect the page/ban his IP? He currently uses: 166.171.122.176. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And back again...[11]--MONGO 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If that is the case where is the peer reviewed citation saying it was a human skull? There is no citation (or it is an error state)

The page on Lloyd Pye discusses in great detail a variety of subjects. The wording i changed is factually correct as in it comes from having read the content and i have used my own words to input the information. The page, whether peer reviewed or not, gives the DNA results as performed by a professional institution. They are a matter of fact and of record. This page at least deserves to show ,factually, what is reported in Lloyds page and without the sleight towards sarcasm and the false claim that th skull was human when it is a matter of fact that it wasn't human

And since it is an informational page, why would anything need peer reviewed. It should state lloyds beliefs and views as opposed to actual provne peer reviewed facts. Its about him and his views and his journey which included him being a part of getting the DNA tested and publishing the results on his site

Why would you NOT want to have a page about Lloyd be factually correct about his beliefs views and life??

Are you saying we need to have all our opinions about anything peer reviewed? Do you have any pages on Gods or Deities? Is there proof of a God that has been peer reviewed that i missed?? Can beliefs be peer reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggisnneeps (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We don't need super-strong sources for obvious correctives to fringe views. See WP:PARITY, also WP:ASSERT since what we say is obvious. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arman

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi please come to this page.Arman ad60 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Doug

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What can you tell me about the book, Worlds Together Worlds Apart? I believe I have run across one of those "new users" using this book. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

You aroused my curiosity...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...and since you mentioned the name, I thought you'd appreciate the following if you haven't read it already...[12]. I love WP because it affords us an opportunity to continue learning. Atsme📞📧 21:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is your opinion concerning this edit and the sources;

  • Govert Westerveld, The Training of Isabella I of Castile as the Virgin Mary by Churchman Martin de Cordoba in 1468, Lulu.com, 2015, page 115.
  • Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge University Press, page 333.
  • Nancy Rubin Stuart, Isabella of Castile: The First Renaissance Queen, ASJA Press, 2004, page 338.

As I explained to the IP on Isabella I of Castile's talk page, that the only reliable source was the Alkire source. And, that the Alkire source does not support the paragraph in question. Sorry to bother you with this, I know you are busy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

la violette & ignorance

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

So...special asst. to prez, isnt obama? I think youre uneducated. I think that, because I bothered to read, as you can too. And its NOT AT ALL about UFO's - tho Mr. Schoch would like to educate in that slanderous direction. How about quantum physicists? Do only Rocket scientists or nuclear physicists fly for you? I have viewed every single video on those two official/non official site links I gave, and the word UFO does not exist in ANY of them. From where do you get this misled info??? (I dont do UFO!) Letterhead330 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) http://starburstfound.org/bio-for-paul-laviolette/ http://starburstfound.org/letters-of-support/

there are TWO more links I could have put, if not for your rude censorship bigoted robot. Also may have to do with my MENSA membership. from the link above BIO: He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that not only accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces in a unified manner, ... (like, holy crud,Letterhead330 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) doug weller) see the bottom for the asst director of a nasa division, and the 2 senators letters to national science foundation. Senator Kennedy, ever hear of him?

I see now. Youre educated via WIKI???? Ho ho ho. May want to update a page for this very well respected scientist so you can become more informed and its apparent you used WIKI as your source (OMG, its user submitted). Why not be fair and give the man a proper page, with the accolades I just supplied you with? Letterhead330 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC) You might also learn that Dr. Osmanagich was given a similar congressional letter from his local :(TX?) rep. This is just absurd how youre demeaning this important find; it is no longer 2006 infancy, its very far advanced now. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Letterhead330 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

UFO: subject for the uneducated about 1950s hover craft created by US gov featured in last Oct or Nov. Popular Mechanics after being declassified, complete with a photo provided by said gov. Dont compare Paul La Violette to the woo woo likes of Giorgio Hairopolis or any of these other youtube idiots -- youre rejecting a link to a scientific international conference due to being hosted on Tube to be seen, equals woowoo?????? Think again and VIEW it before you leap to offensive conclusions.

Letterhead330 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC) PS Im screenshotting your comments and forwarding to Mr. La Violette, absolutely shocking. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Link titleLetters of Support


Superwave Theory

• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation

• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation

• Letter from Christopher Lehman, Special Assistant to the President

• Letter from Dr. Korotkovitch (Leningrad) to the National Science Foundation

• Letter from Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts

• Letter from Sir Crispin Tickell UK Mission to the UN

• Letter from Wilbert Chagula, Tanzanian ambassador to the UN Cosmology

• Letter from professor Georges de Vaucouleur, University of Texas, Austin

• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France and professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS

• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France

• Letter from professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS

• Letter from Grote Reber, father of radio astronomy

• Letter from professor Paul Marmet, National Research Council of Canada

• Letter from professor Dean Turner, University of Northern Colorado Feeling Tone Theory

• Letter from professor Karl Pribram, Neuropsychology Laboratory, Stanford University

• Letter from professor Walter Freeman, Division of Neurobiology, UC Berkeley

• Letter from professor Ted Packard, Chairman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah

• Letter from professor Richard Rowan, Director of Counseling Services, The Evergreen State College

• Letter from Dee Dickinson, Coordinator, New Horizons for Learning

• Letter from Hazel Henderson, Co-Director, Princeton Center for Alternative Futures Aerospace Technology: NASA Space Plane Correspondence

• Letter from Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program

• Letter to Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program


Requests for Information

• Institutional affiliations of people requesting information on Starburst research (1984-1989) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterhead330 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Letterhead330 I never linked LaViolette with UFOs, that's Valery Uvarov. LaViolette was a respectable scientist at one time, but I don't think you'll find many scientists taking his book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology" seriously. And I looked at the letters - some were supportive, a few were 'that's very interesting' which is often a kind way of dismissing someone. Two were from him. Note that the letters seem to be all dated in the 80s and early 90s. I've heard of Senator Ted Kennedy of course - or were you thinking that was John F Kennedy. As for the Obama accolade, since you hadn't even seen the letter you had no way of knowing it had anything to do with Obama or that it was an accolade. And of course as you now know it was a 1983 letter from a third level staff member in Reagan's executive office. All it says is (paraphrased) thanks, I'll share your one page letter with the appropriate people. No suggestion at all that it is praise, let alone praise from Reagan.
But none of this matters. LaViolette is neither an archaeologist nor a geologist, so has no qualifications to judge anything archaeological or geological. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I've no idea what hovercraft have to do with he Bosnian Pyramids, but this may be the article you had in mind. If you can find more recent sources by real archaeologists and geologists that meet WP:RS then that would be useful.
And I read well enough to have degrees from some of the best universities in the world and to have taught another for ten years. Doug Weller (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Arman

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No you are not right. I am not in an edit war. I have good relation with Mr. Eperoton. Actually he told me to do the edits in the main article. He just asked me a question and I have given him the answer. Nothing more than that.Arman ad60 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Arman ad60By our definition you are. It doesn't matter if an editor is right or wrong. And no one can give you permission to violate our policies. Doug Weller (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Abuse of editor

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Doug. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1. Nergaal is - in my view - unfairly abusing Jakec for nominating an article at FLC which he does not consider interesting. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you insist on having a disambiguation page at this title, please fix the incoming links. If you find these links are unfixable because they refer to the concept of the Persian Empire, please restore this to an article, or tag it as an SIA, since the concepts are not unrelated. bd2412 T 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Worm Theology" Entry

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New user. Naive and uneducated in Wikipedia culture and procedures. I've never made an entry, but read your entry on "Worm Theology." I generally agree with the entry, and I would suggest/add that worm theology in Christian circles has its Biblical roots in Isaiah 41:14 and Psalm 22:6. In the Psalm the author writes he is a worm and not a man. The context of the Psalm is suffering and affliction in the light of God's holiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.73.97 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #187

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

Promoting Worlds Together, Worlds Apart

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I see that you have noticed and reverted some edits by a user who, in all but two edits according to this contribution page, plugs a book named "Worlds Together, Worlds Apart" along with not-very-useful-looking changes. Do you think anything more should be done? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peter|, it's a classroom exercise.[13] I hoped they would use a sandbox. Drmies, do you think we need to do more? Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We could ask User:Prof. Mc, if he can tear himself away from his homebrewing, whether he can have a look. I have a nagging feeling, though, that these are the last-minute edits a student is making for a class assignment and there's not much to be done about it now. I'm not sure if we pointed Prof. Mc to Wikipedia:Education program already, but especially if the WP Education format isn't followed, it's always a good idea to have students sign in somewhere, on the professor's talk page if need be, so that we (other editors) can look through someone's contributions and figure out what is going on. One could do something like this, for instance. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies, I've emailed him. I see a lot more asterisks around recently, stars for Christmas? Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and I see I should have looked at WP:ANI first. I'll add a comment there. Seeing the discussion is already archived, I'll just add here: in addition to the ones mentioned earlier, I expect Esavioli might also be a student. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caste system in India

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caste system in India. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the change of this article into a dab page

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hey Doug,

While I agree this shouldn't be used as a "real article" (I think it was just fine priorly), ever since it has been changed to a dab page it has caused extensive content problems as numerous dab bots have changed everything that formerly stated Persian Empire (an historical entity created by numerous empires based in what is modern-day Iran) to Greater Iran (a loosely defined ethno-cultural region). This is simply not correct, yet it has already been mass-changed on every article that used to have the dab link of "Persian Empire" [14]. I had brought up the concerns to the bot owner who afterwards reverted the changes back (resulting in the links now having been de-linked) but right now its still an issue. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me BD2412. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, really don't have time. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You are supposed to make a good-faith effort to clean up disambiguation links that you create. If you don't have time to fix things, don't create the mess in the first place and expect others to clean it up. bd2412 T 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
User:BD2412 I haven't been asked to clear up a dab link other than the one in the section above, which I've done. I don't know what you are referring to and that issn't what LouisAragorn was asking me if I understand him correctly. See DBachmann's comments on his talk page however as they are aimed at you. Why all the aggression? Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am referring to this edit, which turned a WP:DABCONCEPT list into a disambiguation page, making a thousand links show up as errors needing to be fixed. bd2412 T 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You do realise I didn't create that version but reverted to it? Again I refer you to User_talk:Dbachmann#Persian_Empire as your argument is really with Dab. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am aware that Dbachmann changed the page first. I reverted his change, which, per WP:BRD, should have led to a discussion, not further reversion. The fact that you agreed with Dbachmann doesn't create a consensus of two with which to eliminate a need to discuss as disruptive a change as adding a disambiguation tag to a page with over a thousand incoming links. bd2412 T 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What are your thoughts on this source;

For architecture, sure. Dubious about for anything else. Doug Weller (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Almoravids

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The editor removed my edit on the Almoravid page claiming that he can find several "reliable" sources that proves that the name Almoravid comes from the name Al Muribatin. We reject this claim and asks the editor to cite just two reliable sources that conclusively shows his position. Sheik Way-El 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

Sheik Way-El This belongs in the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

ping

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you take a look at [Mawlid] and the My tirade, I mean discussion, at the talk page. Islam related it is, so help you can provide. I am mightily pissed off at the moment about the blind reverting going on perhaps you can lend a hand. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #188

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

Unblock appeal

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Doug Weller,
I think this request might get buried under all of the verbiage above but I was hoping you could review your block for User talk:Chrisdunn1. He states that he has sent in information confirming his identity to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you would have access to this. Thanks if you could take a moment and see if this block can be lifted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisdunn1 (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You reverted my corrections and I may not have a problem with it , but could you plz be a bit more accommodative if I question your explanation to ' my motives '. rahila 17:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Chrishitch All I meant is that you've probably seen it that way elsewhere, nothing sinister. Doug Weller (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks for the effort.

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Unwelcoming spirit?

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. In regards to your subtle but snide remarks: "ok, here's the relevant quote, that was almost as easy as tagging." I am surprised by your touch. Did you try to blame me for unnecessary tagging? Keep in mind that it took you the time that it did only because you were familiar with the source and/or had access to it-- not me (at least, at that time). This was not a drive by tagging (WP:DRIVEBY). It is as if you are trying to keep people away rather than creating a welcoming environment for new users (WP:BITE). Rosario (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Rabanorosario It was easy, I just right-clicked on the source to open it up and popped in his name. I don't understand what you mean you weren't familiar with the source, your edit summary clearly said "The source does not support this claim." I assume that means you read the source, how else would you know it doesn't support the claim? I'm curious as to how you even ran across the article. And yes, it does irritate me when someone tags something that can be easily sourced. You know enough about different tags, creating categories, creating re-direct pages and our policies and guidelines for me to assume that you have either edited as an IP or with another account (which is fine if it is't blocked/banned), or spent a lot of time studying us before you started to edit.
But except for that unnecessary tag you've done some good work it seems. Good catch with the professor. However, that document on Google drive probably needs the url deleted as there's no evidence it's not a copyvio link, and we don't need to link to things we can easily identify even if there's a paywall. Anyway, sorry if I upset you but I think we're even now with your comment about subtle but snide, ok? Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Doug Weller, thanks for responding. I find it remarkable how volunteers like you are so dedicated. That's something I appreciate, truly, and my comments were not meant to drag you down. Still, I think I found the origins of your confusion: while on my mobile, I read from the cited source only a part and could not reach where it supposedly supported the claim in the article. I had visited it twice with the same luck. So, I simply asked for verification. I suspected it could have been a glitch on my side (which now I can confirm), but could not verify it then. So, as for me, the source did not support the claim. In addition, the way this article is organized strikes the reader as if it has been a battleground for trivial, yet heated discussions for too long. For example, I would not have placed a sentence about another persons' opinion in such a key paragraph because it seems as if the article's writer is trying to purposely undermine the person (recently deceased), as if there are old scores to settle. As you should know, this approach backfires because the insincerity or animosity is obvious to the good reader. Rather, the controversy around his origins should go in a different paragraph to produce a more NPOV. So, there is another reason for the tag; it also looked confusing and even suspicious, and instead of deleting the sentence and/or starting a discussion in the TP, I simply asked for verification. The point I want to make is that while many irresponsible users carelessly ride the tagging power-trip, you don't need to see all the tagging as such. It repels newcomers. For one, I have long been a heavy consumer of WP (even a modest $ contributor, but not a user until recently), which explains my familiarity with the system, but I can't spend more than a few minutes a week contributing. So, careful (up to what I can see) tagging is sometimes the best I can offer. This links to the subject of the tone in your comments: I am trying to bring students to WP, but I have become increasingly worried by the unwelcoming attitude of a few long-time users. This subculture of aggressive interaction tends to push my pupils away (I know, I should not be so protective...). So, I have been hunting for subjects and areas populated with editors showing a more welcoming attitude. And no, I have never been blocked or banned. My time is too precious to spend it making the work of WP editors more difficult. That's all, and thanks! Rosario (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I'm sorry, Rabanorosario, the edit summary "The source does not support this claim" doesn't sound to me even a little like simply asking for verification, or like "my device can't read all of the source". It sounds categorical, and it was hardly "confusion" on Doug's part to read it as a statement that the source does not support the claim. If you weren't faulting the user who contributed the information and the source for falsehood, you certainly sounded like it. Have you thought about your own touch? Bishonen | talk 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC).
I didn't think you had been, but I've been fooled before. Your point about putting it elsewhere would work in an ideal world, but from my experience with that article that wouldn't last. Someone would come along and add an unqualified statement about his origin to the WP:LEAD. Are you aware that we have a program to assist academics with Wikipedia based projects? One key of course to that is to make sure that students are clearly identified as such. I do some tagging myself although I usually like to find sources if possible Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks. I suspected that this has been the experience with that article. The best it could happen is that a team of editors would semi-protect it while working on a better structure. But, we can only wish. I am aware of the program. It is on my to-do list. Thanks again. Rosario (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen:, before jumping in as a guardian, I would have invited you to read my original post AGF. It was a question. Even the section's title has a question mark! At the center of my concern was not so much the source, but his remarks indicating frustration with what appeared drive-by tagging. So, I wanted to make sure I was not reading him wrongly and that he would understand my intentions. And regarding the source, read my second post more carefully. For what I could see, yes, the sentence was funny and unsourced. In fact, it is a bit out of place, as we showed just now. And in that sense, Doug read my tagging correctly. But that is why he intervened in the text and then we talked here, isn't? And you should try to see my intentions as good ones too, which is what I did with Doug's. Otherwise, I would have pursued a different approach, perhaps a harsher one like yours. Rosario (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bear with me…..

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please advise. Semitransgenic talk. 17:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks Semitransgenic talk. 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Darius I

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I think that in the last days Darius I was - and still is - a targed of some kind of "fanboy" activity. I actually suspect that the edits were made by a single user with multiple accounts. Khruner (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Corduene

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed your edit to Corduene. I'd agree that not everything verifiable should be included and we should avoid giving certain points of view WP:UNDUE emphasis. Perhaps Cyril Toumanoff's opinion on Carduchian dynasties should be lower in the article and not in the lede. But I'm surprised you felt it appropriate to completely delete this information, which appears to accurately summarize Toumanoff's opinion. Our article on him says his works have significantly influenced the Western scholarship of the medieval Caucasus. I have no particular axe to grind about east Anatolian history, but it seems better to include this view (and others that disagree or concur) than to cut them out. Frankly, there's little scholarship at all on Corduene, so the more we can do to separate solid history from nationalist myth, the better. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this longer, I want to acknowledge that I may be overlooking some tendentious aspect of Toumanoff's claim that the principality of Corduene was a Carduchian dynasty. I realize that some people are very anxious to see the Carduchians as proof of Kurdish presence in the area; others seem equally anxious to refute this. If so, perhaps we can reference other views to provide perspective. Or maybe it's just that the Carduchian link is of minor importance in the thousand-plus-year history of this territorial unit under various names. In which case, we move it lower. Other suggestions welcome. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing a response here, can I assume that you're OK for me to restore the Toumanoff info at some point in that article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Rupert Clayton, between the Arbitration Committee, trying to do some editing, and real life I've forgotten about this. My concern is that it doesn't seem to be significant enough to meet WP:UNDUE. Have you searched for other reliable sources making the same claim? Doug Weller (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries: I can see you're a busy person, and it's a busy time of year. Like I said, scholarship on Corduene is thin at best. It seems you edit a lot on Persian topics, so you may have read a lot more on the subject than me. If there's a reason you feel the Toumanoff claim is particularly POV, I'd like to make sure the context of alternative views is given due prominence. If it's just that there's little other info on "Carduchian dynasties" then I'd rather leave in Toumanoff's claim, but move it to somewhere less prominent than the lede.
I understand the merit of WP:UNDUE, but it's one thing to repeat a wild claim that Donald Trump is a chimera with ginger cat genes (for example), and another to accurately summarize a statement from a reliable WP:SOURCE that's really neither corroborated nor disputed simply due to the paucity of coverage. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
There's also[15] 2 years earlier, User:Rupert Clyaton. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. That looks like the same Toumanoff reference from Traditio, 1961 (INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN CAUCASIAN HISTORY: II: States and Dynasties of the Formative Period). Part I of that article, published 1959, has a couple of references to Corduene, but those don't seem to help us much. Did you mean a different link? Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Rupert Clayton No, I just confused myself. I still feel that if this was something commonly accepted we'd find more evidence of it, including writers in the last 60 or so years mentioning Toumanoff's claim. Our inability to find this is why I don't think it belongs. We could asked for a third opinion - Wikipedia:Third opinion or an WP:RFC but we'd need to copy this thread to the talk page, which I think we should do anyway - are you happy with copying it there? Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy for this thread to move to Talk:Corduene. Not sure this is worth the effort of an RFC. Maybe I should just put Toumanoff's claim lower down the article, and note that it appears not to have been echoed by more recent scholars? Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Doug. Could you please take a look at Talk:Ancestry of the Godwins. An IP keeps vandalising it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #189

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #186

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_38&oldid=1151040379"