User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Karina Cynthia

Hi Doug. After failing to respond to their block, Karina Cynthia (talk · contribs) has returned and continued adding unnecessary commas. Perhaps another, longer block is in order to try and get them to communicate? Cheers, Number 57 09:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Email from FDW777

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi Doug, could something be done about User:Gelias01? Inspired by what looks like racism, he seems to have used his account only to make disruptive edits, chiefly blanking sections of articles that claim 'African' influences on European culture. Currently he has just broken the 3RR rule over on Aesop, where he had earlier made the same edit in May. Despite being asked to establish consensus on the Talk page first, his disruptive behaviour has persisted. Verbal warnings and reference to correct procedure seem to make no difference to this editor. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Racism? Where? I only remove a section which has nothing to do in wikipedia. There aren't any evidence (outside of afrocentrist claims) that Aesop was black. So talking about "African" influence on European culture at this way is a total fraud. What's next? A black Ceasar? A black Napoleon? Wikipedia is not an afrocentrist site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelias01 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I will post reliable sources

Much of the history of the Negrito had been left out apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.176.92 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

verification

why was I not given an opportunity to verify my info

Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Your important notice

Dear User

You have sent to me an (automated?) Important Notice about discretionary sanctions. Why ? You just want I would be aware of that ? Since 2004, it is the first time I have received this kind of notice. I always discuss first (or at least try to).

And I do not understand the reasons of your notice…

Kind regards, -Arorae (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Aardvark231

Hi Doug Weller. You struck through the comments made by this editor at Talk:Hillary Rodham senior thesis; so, I'm wondering if the same should be done to their comment at WT:C#Linking to copyrighted works? I'm pretty sure the thread was started by Aardvark231 just to try and get the link they wanted to add to the thesis article eventually added, but there might be some value to leaving the thread going. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason you shouldn't do it. I can't do it easily from my tablet and won't have an opportunity to use my laptop until tonight. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought about doing it, but then thought it might be possibly seen as an attempt by me to try and sway the discussion in a certain way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphans of the Sky micro-dispute

Hello Doug- I've stumbled into a little spat with an old pal of ours who can be challenging to collaborate with, and wanted to ask your advice on how to proceed. It involves a minor wording change, which, combined with the edit summary provided, I found to be erroneous and reverted. It is a nit-picky little thing, but I find the other editor's attitude a bit difficult. I'm not sure if it warrants posting at ANI or for edit-warring, and I want to avoid warring myself. Would you mind taking a look? Sorry if it's too piddly to bother you with. Orphans of the Sky revision history editor's talkpage history. Thanks in advance for any pointers. Eric ^talk 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Eric: honestly, it's not worth the candle. I sympathise but I would advise you not to take this to the drama boards. You need to find a better field to stand in. I must read the book again, it's got to be too many decades to contemplate since I read it. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of what I thought. I tried a reword of the sentence, so we'll see if that soothes the rash of the contentious. As for the decades, you just provoked a gruesome bit of math reckoning on my part -- I think I read it forty years ago! (insert vomiting and weeping emoji here) Cheers, Eric ^talk 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Eric: that recently? Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I guess the appropriate reply would be I'm only an egg. Eric ^talk 20:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

AfriForum

You added tags to the AfriForum article in March this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AfriForum&diff=next&oldid=886324506 Do you still believe that the article is POV, and if so, can you be a little more specific about which aspects you believe should be amended? I agree that the lead should be rewritten. Do you still believe that the article relies too much on primary sources? I don't see that, so... perhaps you mean something specific when you say "primary sources"? -- leuce (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Primary source. Sorry, but you've been here for six years or so; you should know this. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Adenostemma viscosum

Doug, In response to your question involving the source on a this recent posting, if you would like, I can scan the page from the hard copy book, but it is actually available on the web at https://archive.org/details/mobot31753003034128/page/192 if you have access to this. If your question is whether Adenostemma viscosum is an American species it is identified as being native to America on Wikipedia at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenostemma_lavenia. Adenostemma lavenia is a synonym for Adenostemma viscosum See: https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=38718&print_version=PRT&source=to_print#null If you think it would be helpful to clarity that it is a synonym and create a link to the Adenostemma lavenia wiki page, I could do that. Just let me know. Thanks for your help in getting clear and accurate Wiki postings. ````Geneva11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva11 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the plant is native to the Americas (as stated also in Wikipedia), so (ignoring for the moment the bird argument) in order to arrive in Hawaii (or any of those other places Hillebrand mentions) prior to European contact, there would need to have been contact with the Americas. So it is not a fringe theory as it is substantiated by fairly solid biological identification in Hawaii prior to European contact. That particular Wiki page has as it's specific title that all material there are theories. On the bird distribution, I did not run across that article when I did a cite and topic search on the scientific databases I use, so it was definitely a good catch by you and should rightly be cited as a possible alternate explanation for the dispersion of that species.Geneva11 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for a revdel

Hi Doug. Would you be so kind as to take a look at this diff and consider revdeling it? In my view, it is defamatory to the subject of the article and it also reveals what purports to be some personal details about the subject that I assume not to be legitimately in the public domain (assuming that they are true at all). Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry. Somebody else has already done it. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Need Info

User box represents the user. I want to know who in en wiki has the best user page in your eyes. I will use that taking permission. Wiki Ruhan (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Email me ASAP please

Need to sort out some stuff about your email address. Risker (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek revert

Author did use that headline as seen from the screenshot and she wrote that “(...) Perković began his performance by screaming Ustashe battle cries. Several people in the audience were seen making Nazi salutes (...)" which was false and therefore later removed from the article, in addition to the change of the whole headline. Kolinda Grabar Kitarović isn't mentioned anywhere so I don't know why you mention her. Newsweek themselves issued a correction notice, acknowledging the mistake. Index.hr is, alongside jutarnji.hr and vecernji.hr, a quite reliable source. It's obvious that Newsweek was, in this case, aiming for sensationalism. And from what I see, this isn't their first time. United Union (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dwight York

The website shows good rating and its also not self published. Just curious how its not eligible for citation. https://dailylifestories.storychief.io/malachi-york-the-man-in-the-west-african-spotlight This source.LeungChow (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@LeungChow: You can take it to WP:RSN for more opinions, but I see no evidence of editorial control and it does seem self-published, a personal website owned by Georgiana L. Brown who seems to be the only author. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

MY bad. I did not notice that (personal website owned by Georgiana L. Brown)LeungChow (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

Chekavar are thiyyar

Chekavar are thiyyar and not Ezhavar. Ezhavar exist in South Kerala And chekavar was in North Kerala where thiyyar exist Unniyarcha (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Note this. We've reached the end of the line, I think, and I have said as much on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Is there any other way to contact someone in Wikipedia who react to POV sentences, if the administrators don't respond? Maybe you look at these POV sentences and this discussion. regards B9Xyz (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe era-style

Hi Doug, This is about the change of era-style. I was unaware that the established style of the page had apparently changed as of august 2012, a change which could also be seen in the revision history. However, I could not find any discussion about such a change on the talk page. Could you perhaps give me a link to it? I would really appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papayapal (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Papayapal: no, I can't. But despite that it is still clearly the established style by default as no one challenged it, so a change would require discussion. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so, as I understand it someone changed the established style on 2 september 2012 without any kind of discussion and because this change was not challenged for at least some time it became the new established style. Is this correct? Would this also have meant that if you didn't revert my change, nor anyone else would have, The established style would have changed again after some time without discussion? Also, if this process constitutes established practice, shouldn't this be included in wikpedia's Manual of Style/Dates and numbers? I wonder what you think. [User:Papayapal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papayapal (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Papayapal: Yes, that's correct. I doubt that anyone would see any point in more verbiage about that in the MOS given some discussions I've seen. It's just not necessary. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, my interpretation differs, and I feel entirely justified by the policy to restore an illegally changed style, whether (more often) ENGVAR or ERA, changed back as far as, say, 2010, and have sometimes done so, especially if someone else has raised the matter. I would normally point this out on talk though; I don't recall this ever causing ructions. Doug, how long does it take for an illegally changed style to become "established"? Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There are few laws on Wikipedia, but there are agreed guidelines. The main point about era styles is whether they make sense to experts within the historical context being discussed, and also whether the use of Christian dating is inclusive of or acceptable to all in the international scholarly community. In this case, the subject of the article goes far back in history among peoples never involved with that ideology. To use anything but Common Era dating would be exclusive, and that is why the changes of unthinkingly and inexpertly used Anno Domini dates were made in the article and have remained in constant use for many years. So far User:Papayapal has advanced no reasoned argument for the change s/he urges, other than the false appeal to non-existent 'laws'. There are, however, penalties for edit warring and making changes without consensus at this point, with which it would be a good idea that the user made themself familiar. It would also be a good idea if the user looked up how to sign their name. Arguing about procedures when they are ignorant of even so elementary a need is not the right path to being taken seriously. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That prescriptivism is precisely not the main point of WP:ERA, but we shouldn't continue this here. It sounds like a discussion to settle the matter at the article might be needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Johnbod, however I do think a discussion here can be fruitfull as the central point of contention is not what the established era style should be (a discussion reserved for the Göbekli Tepe talk page) but about what it is right now (a conclusion that follows from the rules set in the guidelines and according to Doug Weller some unwritten rules, which can be perfectly valid) The reason why I started to talk with Doug is because I wanted the rules to be clarified in order to avoid future mistakes but now it turns out there exists some wider disagreement on what the rules are exactly and I think we should be able to talk about that. As a side note, I don't understand where you are coming from sweetpool50. My original edit was justified in light of the current MOS and yes, I am a newcomer, which is why I came here to have the rules clarified as I know I don't understand how everything works yet. I was not argueing about what the rules should be. I was not apealing to 'laws'. I was not edit warring. Don't threaten me with with penalties the moment you are confronted with a slightly different point of view. Please stay calm and civil. And lastly WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. Papayapal (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I responded...

I responded... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leuce#AfriForum -- leuce (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My edit

What I erased was falsely leading information... Millions of people drink from Zamzam water and it was tested in many labs so how can anybody dare speak about it when they even aren’t sure that the water they tested is the real thing? I thank the uk for protecting its people from liars who use the Zamzam water name to sell their goods, but that doesn’t mean Zamzam water is dangerous it only means that you got to look out outside Mecca from liars who use the holy waters name for their own purposes... I only want to remove ignorant information because I really believed this site is a really informative one and I still think such ignorance should be left for people to read. Anas20iii (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Roza Bal

I pass this [1] buck (or cup?) to you, hope that's ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

==Roza Bal Relics== Professor Fida Hassnain and Suzanne Olsson co-authored and published at least three books together. One of them, 'The Roza Bal Beyond the DaVinci Code' was published in 2004 by Dastgir Publishers of Srinagar. When the senior company founder died in 2006, there was no one left to run the business and it folded. This has always been a legitimate publisher. Reference to the publisher 'Booksurge' can be removed. The same information appears in all editions so it is just a matter of switching the book and edition. Do not refer to Fida Hassnain as 'fringe' sources! He was Director of the Kashmir State Archives for over 30 years after many years of higher education. He spoke 5 languages and traveled the world as a Professor...If he gave peer review to Olsson's work, and even co-authored with her, then it is unfair and biased to call her "fringe" or unreliable in the same breadth. That's an insult to the judgement of Professor Hassnain. Further, I refer you to Laurence Gardner's last book, 'The Origin of God'. L.G. died before it was published by mainstream publishers. No one would take it after his death. His wife published it with a local and somewhat controversial minister who calls his publishing company 'Dash House' because his name is Darryl Dash. Apparently he does little or no publishing outside his highly religious blog. And yet he is used as a reliable source on a page that Doug Weller edited January 2017. I am sure I can find many more such examples throughout Wikipedia where Doug Weller has been an editor and where self-publishers, blogs, and internet articles are used as primary sources. The point is, you have not presented valid reasons to reverse the edits at Roza Bal. The article as it is currently written is full of bias and misinformation. You and Graaberg San (?) should be welcoming efforts to improve and update the article. Now, will you help me insert the pictures and get the article back on track?  :-) Thank You.Sunami70 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Just putting this link, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive, here, in case we need it. Sunami70, please don't confuse us with some blog. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep your warnings to yourself, Doug.

You need to stop editing political articles and ingesting leftist slants into them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.195.132.163 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• That you were right on one count doesn't make you right on the others. If you had taken the trouble to explain yourself on the talk page, you wouldn't have received a warning. You were certainly edit warring and being disruptive, and this is a personal attack on top of that. I will be more than happy to block you if you continue. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is "ingesting leftist slants" bad for your stomach?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

==Drmies== it's one thing to come here with fun names and made-up ID's- just like you are doing now! Show me anyone here with their real name. However, when you set out to personally attack someone because you don't like their ideas...and those attacks continue regardless how many ID's are posted...it's obvious that the issue is no longer about sock puppets...it's about personal beefs, dislikes, and grievances against a particular person or idea. Take Doug Weller for example. I have followed his edits all over Wiki, and a pattern begins to emerge. One can determine his political and religious views because his patterns of edits are so consistent. I suppose if I follow you around, I could discern the same about you. But I don't want to. The page on Roza Bal was originally started many years ago by people that I know...long before they ever heard of Doug Weller. Somehow through the years, he edited out every voice but his own, and every biased view but his own. That's not fair to Wikipedia, and not fair to users nor to other editors. The current info is totally wrong in most areas, outdated in others, and highly biased in many places. If someone doesn't stand up and address these problems, that is a blotch on all Wikipedia. Doug Weller does an awesome job, and spends A LOT of time in and around Wiki...I see that. But he hasn't always got it right...None of us do....That's why it's called 'research'. You gonna help me post the pictures of the relics and update the Roza Bal page? Or you gonna sit there and fester? I can be a lot of fun to work with. Fun is better than festering. Yes?  ;-) Sunami70 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Sunami70Sunami70 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sunami70: what is the 2017 page? I'm sure that I've edited pages where I've missed poor sources. So what? I remove poor sources wherever I notice them, that's the key thing. I sometimes even do searches for the use of a particular source and remove it from as many articles as appropriate. That shows in my edit summaries and it's odd that you didn't see that. I'm by no means the major editor at Roma Bal. I'm the 5th most active editor with 6.8% of the edits. You are not telling the truth about my edits here. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I meant to ping you. This is some odd stuff, no? By the way, the pictures all seem copyright. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug, this Sunami70 is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. This BS about "fun names" and all that--I am too old to be explained what Wikipedia is by someone who obviously doesn't care what it really is. BTW, which pictures? I don't know what pictures are being talked about here, except for example.jpg. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Kymoor104

Hi, Doug, This editor has been doing lots of OR additions to articles on Middle Eastern deities and others and, when asked to supply references, gives a WP page that s/he has edited. I've changed a few but all of them need reversing going back over at least a month, and a warning might be useful, don't you think? Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.

Hi, Doug, this is Kymoor104 here I saw your message and I wanted to apologize for wrongly using Wikipedia Articles, I didn't know that was against the rules. I'm going to revert my edits and make sure I use more reliable sources from now on.

@Kymoor104: that's great, thanks very much. You can always ask me about sources, I spend a lot of time finding them and checking others to see if they meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick enough to contact you, but I notice s/he has not followed up on the promise to revert the reversion of my previous edit. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is Bad Editing

RE this about ley line

The reason you have to deal so much with better editors criticizing you, so that even on your own page you have to complain about "vulgarities", is that you are a bad editor when you wikilawyer articles. This isn't name calling, it's an observation of fact. And, ironically, that is me assuming good faith, as the alternative would be that you're not a bad editor per se, but malicious and machiavellian, deleting non-controversial information you don't like, when it could better be fixed or tagged.

And therein lies the crux of your bad editing, illustrated by the WP:Unsourced article that you linked to, itself. It explicitly states that "in some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". And if you were sufficiently competent to have really read not only it, but other content on such topics, you'd know that the criteria for when to instantly remove center around how controversial either the information or the topic are. An article about some silly paranormal hypothesis, pointing out that it's popular as a trope in movies, is far from controversial. Especially a simple set of examples easily verified, some of which anyone even vaguely familiar with pop culture instantly knew when perusing said list. No, when you wikilawyer articles, using minor issues to remove information wholesale instead of either fixing it or adding tags suggesting fixes, you are being a bad editor. It's just that simple. You should actually learn from the many people who object to your abuses, not whine about it at them. — Kaz (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kazvorpal, this is bad editing: you added a bunch of trivial stuff with no secondary sourcing to prove that any of it matters. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, at worst that's lazy editing. But, as I said, a competent editor understands that the guidelines of wikipedia vary in their intensity, based on context. At a glance anyone will realize that those are probably real examples of popular media references to the subject of the article. The number and significance, unless entirely fake, are sufficient to merit at worst a tag, not removal. What's more, the information is not damaging if false, is not controversial, and it's not in an article that's suffering from a size problem. There is no living biography issue. There is no negativity, no PoV...nothing that would even arguably require censoring the information instead of either improving or tagging it. Just wikilawyering, which is always bad editing. It comes from the desire to silence information — like truth one opposes in politics, middle-east conflict, or other factors that draw machiavellian personalities — being misapplied to all wikipedia as if every trivial little factoid was problematic and creating of conflict. — Kaz (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is indeed not the way to write about things, and has proven so again and again. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm that's how Fit in or fuck off was written, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Kazvorpal: this is all a bit silly and shows lack of good faith. Taking it from the top, my statement about removing posts containing vulgarities is something I put there when I became an Admin 11 years ago, copying it from similar statements I found on other Admins' talk pages. Nothing to do with " better editors criticizing you" - and who are these better editors? I'm sure there are better editors (probably the two in this thread who replied to you) but on my talk page? Who are these editors who whine about my abuses? Please name them, I'm fascinated. I mean after all I only have almost 200,000 more edits than you do and am trusted enough to be one of the few to have the Checkuser and Oversight tools. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.

Actually, Doug my current edits on Bellona, Kali, Enyo and Anat are my newest ones and are backed up by veritable reliable sources. I have been following up on my promise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymoor104 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have checked on the Bellona references; one does not mention that goddess, the other is a self-edit site. It is my suspicion that this editor is being devious and all his recent edits have been similarly WP:OR. He poses as naively ignorant of WP procedures, despite having been a contributor since 2014, and still has not bothered to look up WP:SIG. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually Doug, @Sweetpool50 has this situation completely wrong, I included relevant links to the goddesses similar to Bellona and made sure my information is variable. Sweetpool50 is the one who keeps harassing me and accusing me of faking ignorance and being a poser up to no good. Doug if you or @Sweetpool50 check my contributions you can see while I have Been on Wikipedia since 2014 I didn't post for nearly 5 years between August 2014 and April this year and i'm STILL learning how to do certain things on this website, but I assure you any mistakes i've made contributing and editing aren't because i'm Bad User but because i'm Human and still learning! Kymoor104 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Stations of the Exodus, again

Hi, somebody just restored the User:Rktect BS of way back in 2015 > Diff ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cush: that's a definite sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect/Archive Here's the range[2] but I don't see any other obvious ones, do you? I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Impressive activity. I did not know Rktect was blocked for sockpuppetry. I had thought it was for disruptive editing and pushing fringe pseudo-science. Is the originator of the current edits the same individual? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cush: I'm not sure what you mean. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed

What is to be done when someone has an extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is accusing other editors [3] of things such as "a defamatory hit-job"? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, we've got a major bias problem at the Andy Ngo article being pushing be editors who are running a clear political agenda to push Wikipedia's voice in a far-left direction. I say this as a liberal. The editors also have a bad habit of being uncivil an/or attacking and then reporting other editors for the same. Do you have advice on how to resolve this? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I suggest you start by striking through the linked comment, it's unacceptable, particularly given the earlier discussion on your talk page here. The conduct of others is not an excuse for your 'defamatory hit job' edit. If you hadn't come here I might even have topic banned you myself or some other Admin might have. User:6YearsTillRetirement is of course free to take you to AE themselves. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How would you suggest I better express the reality of journalists who have smeared Ngo and the efforts by a number of editors to implant those smears into Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice. There's a real bias problem here. Where is proper forum to discuss that? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources for these claims of "bias" to be relevant to the encyclopedia. Your personal opinion of these journalists is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are any non-hard-left sources (e.g. https://quillette.com/2019/07/11/neutralizing-ngo-the-apologetics-of-antifascist-street-violence/) going to be considered reliable here? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For starters, that link is inconsistent with wikipedia policy on multiple levels. Even if Quillette were considered a reliable source (highly dubious at best), it's an opinion piece by someone who does not appear to be a published expert in the field he's writing in. If you're insisting it's equal to the WP:RS in the article, what you have there is a false equivalence fallacy. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, is this a reliable source and is the author a published expert in the relevant field? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's review and find out.

1 - Is Jewish Currents viable for WP:RS as a general rule? It's a magazine that has existed since 1946, with editorial standards, so I would guess so?

2 - Is it an opinion piece? No, it appears to be a thoroughly sourced profile piece.

3 - Is it being sourced for something that would appear to be troubling, specifically? I would say not. There are three points it is cited; 1st is "was strongly against organized religion, which was reflected in his social media activity in the form of "inflammatory language"; however he says that language does not reflect his current beliefs", the 2nd is "According to Ngo, his group was threatened with violence and were intimidated by antifa protesters, however this claim has been disputed", and the 3rd right after is "He later stated that antifa protesters did not disrupt the event". The 1st and 3rd also have a 2nd source inline.

So... what are your objections? It seems that judged by WP:RS it qualifies. Of course, I'm not going to take all day here with every false equivalence you can generate, the proper place for much further would be on the talk page if you think you can make a case for removing a particular source. I note that you ignored my analysis of one edit so quickly that you deleted one of my talk page comments "by mistake" and now we have a claim sourced to four articles that do not support it lingering in the article. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Jewish Currents article strikes me a highly-biased opinion piece from a from a far-left publication (with a communist background) that calls a centrist publication a "far-right, skull–shape–obsessed website". I do not think you have a valid opinion about what constitutes an RS or NPOV. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I had never heard of Jewish Currents before today. I analyzed it starting at the Wikipedia page and went over things according to the guidelines in WP:RS. All I can do at this point is shrug at your continued invective. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment I was asked to join the discussion informally--please remember that "battleground" doesn't necessarily mean that "majority is right" -- In the conversation in question, I see a single editor with a concern who has not been acknowledged. The comments of the individual user have been ignored and that can lead to increased emotions. I've been guilty of that. The best way to settle the issue will be to go back to the matter at hand and fairly consider it. One editor has brought some research, and that research seems to be dismissed. Here's the question then: Why is that research dismissed? Please remember that "majority" is not the same thing as "consensus" -- it's not a popular vote. It looks to me like there is a possibility of WP:POV and even WP:BULLY. Could JWeiss have chosen better words for discussion? Yes. Should he strike through the comments? Probably. Does it solve the real problem? Nope. Is it "topic-ban-worthy" ? Hardly, and that seems to me to fall under the description at the essay Wikipedia:No-edit orders. What precisely did the editor do to warrant such a move? Ask them to fix it and see if they do. If they do, move on to the real issue. No need to make it worse.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You say you were asked to join the discussion? By who? Where? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over genetics between Hunan201p and DerekHistorian

Hi Doug,

Could you take a look at the edit warring going on between Hunan201p edit history and DerekHistorian edit history at Turkmens, Turkic peoples, Haplogroup Q-M25, Hazaras, Cumans and probably a number of other articles? A few diffs [4], [5], [6], [7]. I think most of both their edits violate WP:SCIRS as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been some concern about he latter. Boy do I hate the genetics articles, and especially the genetics sections in other articles. Cherry-picking, bad sources, misrepresentation, you name it. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if you or other admins warn both users and convince them to solve their issues on article talk pages. @Ermenrich: I thought this case was content dispute but now I think someone better takes it to WP:ANI due to behavior of both involved users. Especially since the reverts are related to blocked sockpuppet User:AsadalEditor's leftovers. One user pushes West Eurasian bias and the other one pushes East Asian bias. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wario-Man, I agree that they both need a warning and even that something fishy might be going on. One brought a sock investigation against the other, but it was closed for lack of evidence (not yet archived, [8]). Honestly, the WP:SCIRS requirement that human genetics can only be sourched to review articles just needs to be enforced better. Most of the genetics sections in these articles should just be removed by those criteria. As for ANI, if you take it there I'd speak in support, but I've had enough being at the center of wiki-unpleasantness lately, so I won't be bringing it myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Why Not reliable ?

The added information in Zamzam Well is from National Center for Biotechnology Information, USA . Why this source is not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz Tarak. (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aziz Tarak.: I would recommend you start by reading WP:FRINGE. And even if the general stuff about alkaline water being somehow magically wootastic weren't WP:FRINGE stuff, it's way too far a WP:SYNTH leap from "NCBI did a study and said it's alkaline but not so alkaline it's unsafe to drink" to then a junk journal claiming it will magically cure whatever ails you. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34

Tirgil34 has been very active recently on German Wikipedia with his sock SibirHusky, where he has been adding the same content he previously attempted to add at English Wikipedia.([9][10])([11][12])([13][14])([15][16]) SibirHusky is blocked as a sock on Commons, and was recently blocked on German Wikipedia as well.[17] Large sockfarms have previously been uncovered when CheckUser is performed on Tirgil34 socks.[18][19] Would it be possible to utilize Checkuser on SibirHusky to uncover the current socks of Tirgil34 on English Wikipedia? Krakkos (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Krakkos: CU data only goes back 3 months, so we couldn't check him. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User SPQR10

Hi, I'm putting this on your talk page because you have admonished this user before for disruptive editing User_talk:SPQR10#February_2019_2, yet he continues to blank articles or remove sourced material. Here is one example Orya_Maqbool_Jan. I don't have a beef with him but happened to come across one of edits, and then looked at his edit history. Because he makes many small edits, the full scope of his activities isn't clear to me.

== Peter NYC (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peter NYC: thanks, I'll keep a watching brief. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Question re RS

Hi. Quite sure you're right but just out of interest what's wrong with the source given that you removed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaiah&diff=915493226&oldid=915485424

I was attempting to address a request for a non-primary source and found one easily from a book. I inserted it thinking that would help. Why would that not pass muster re RS? And how can using a book as a source violate copyright? It's not quoted.

To reiterate I'm not arguing just always keen to learn process.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I think the right place for you to start is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) , since the link you provided goes to a blog. "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable." Looking at the content it appears he linked to some PDF content but the journal's website is not in English and some of the links he provided are now dead. You might want to update the sourcing if you are finding it from a scholarly journal (not a book), I believe this Google Scholar link may help you [20]. Wikipedia:Citing_sources may help you too? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The link takes one through to a book, though. Anyway thanks for the second link.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: it was published in a journal run by Emanuel University of Oradea, a Romanian Baptist university. It's basically a religious journal. The author is this guy[21]. I think he'd be great source for Baptist theology, but I really think we need something more mainstream for the article. Others may differ and you can raise this at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No need. You're quite right. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice on dispute

Hi Doug, I realize that this is well outside of your usual editing area, but you're the admin I've had the most interaction with, so I thought I'd ask you. I'm in an escalating dispute over the article Walter Kuhn with a user named MyMoloboaccount. Unbeknownst to me, by trying to limit what I view NPOV edits by this editor, I've actually walked into a gigantic war concerning Poland and WWII that's being adjudicated at Arbcom. I've taken the matter to the NPOV board, but it doesn't seem like it's likely to help, given that it's just the same people involved in the ArbCom dispute who care. It also seems to have made Molobo more aggressive towards me, i.e., he's started accusing me of falsifying sources [22]. Given the fact that I see no way Molobo gives up on getting his way on the article, and that the NPOV board seems unlikely to actually solve anything given the extreme polarization on this subject, I was wondering if you had any advice for what I can do besides just walking away. The whole thing makes me kind of regret trying to improve the article at all, and I'm honestly wondering if I should just take a break from Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ARBCOM case, the article in question is about a virulent Nazi who was involved in ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews, we have numerous scholarly sources(English, Polish and German) describing him as such.I also discovered that while some sources were used to describe Kuhn in beign language, their actual content was very critical of him.Ermenrich stated that he doesn't like some sources who describe Nazi activities of Kuhn, he also confirmed that he has omitted some information.We need to cover what reliable sources state about Kuhn, and all main modern research on him focuses on his support for Nazism and its goals.We can't base articles on personal likes and dislikes.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The point of this is not to continue the argument here Molobo. I obviously disagree with how you think a majority of scholars treat Kuhn and Doug can see that if he looks at the dispute page. This isn't the place.--Ermenrich (talk)

Don't worry. You're doing well asking for outside advice. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian

Hi Doug, thanks again for stepping in the other day with the conflict dispute on the Hong Kong article. However, it seems that the editor in question, DerekHistorian, is stirring up a bit of trouble on the Singapore page as well. I'm not sure if this editor is just lacking in English skills or just really taking edit reversions quite hard, but their behavior is a bit aggressive. I replied to his questions on my talk page about why I removed his content and tried to address things point by point, but he's using my offhand comments about the Singapore article as justification to remove content that he deems as unnecessary for that article as well (see here). I have not encountered something like this before and I'm not sure what process I should start to get this behavior to stop, but it's certainly not desired. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing against Horserice, I just want him to clarify why he said Singapore unceesary fluff of edits doesn't concern him. Maybe it's not his job but I feel like there is bias between Hong Kong and Singapore wiki page. I'm getting of this to be honest. So far as of know I do not see anything remove on the Singpore's leading page Also in the Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage it says Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. This had lead to believe there was something biaqs.

I though wikipedia rules and restrictions applies to everyone. It it's against the rule than same should apply to Singapore. Why is the Hong Kong wiki page look so inferior to Singapore even though both have similar rankings, competitive economy, this makes people people feel there's unfairness. Hong Kong even have many rankings higher than Singapore yet Singapore is allow to mention they are a hub for this and that and mention everything else of rankings ect. The Hong Kong lead section is not even 1/4 the size of the Singapore lead page even after I edited the rest it's still removed, they both have the highest competitive ranking, both are ranked alpha city, they are rivals but yet Hong Kong leading section looks completely inferior to Singapore while Singapore looks superior.

For example the part about Hong Kong is classified as an alpha+ world city, indicating its influence throughout the world. This wasn't even edited by me but by User:Bluesatellite who has major recognition, many barnstars, and member of many wikiprojects -----> here was the date of his edit in 24 May 2019 [[23]] and also mentioned in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city but for some reason Hong Kong is not allowed to have that edited but Singapore is allowed to have alpha city mentioned. Also holding the highest Financial Development Index score and consistently ranking as the most competitive and freest economic area in the world wasn't edited be me either. I only restored that edit in 2019 and added 2017, and than later added 2012 and 2016 next to to it. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Competitiveness_Yearbook it was removed by you Horserice according to your claim ; financial rankings inappropriate per MOS:INTRO but yet again this rule apply to Singapore ? By the way all Lightsabr who is Feinoa updated the 2019 but removed the 2016 and 2012 that shows Hong Kong on the top on purpose. YET AGAIN PROVING MY POINT, THAT I WANTS SINGAPORE TO BE ABOVE HONG KONG.

Based on the criticism of Wikipedia I have every reason to believe there is double standard, prejudice, bias. edits. Because if both Hong Kong and Singapore rankings are close with eachother why is Singapore allowed to edit all of that but Hong Kong not ? This is not about me a job for all the wiki editors to balance the edits, follow the rules that applies to all countries wiki pages equally.

Also ever since the wikipedia sockpuppet account of Worldcreaterfighter, AsadalEditor who properly has hundreds accounts with thousand edits. Many opportunist uses the chance to accuse other others of being his sockpuppet in a way to scare others, threaten others from removing their edits. They accuse others to justify their own edits and avoid wikipedia's rule by accusing others. It seems to me many bias wiki editor keep using the sockpuppet account excuse to justify there own bias editing as a way to get around wikipedia's rule. When I claimed Gyatso1 of misinterpreting the text and claimed he was sockpuppet AsadalEditor but instead turned around to accused me of being AsadalEditor but moderator check it was him who's the sockpuppet /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon_people, than you have Hunan201. who is also removing text from 6-7 years ago, he also accused me of being AsadalEditor ( worldcreaterfighter ) to as a excuse and the result Clerk assistance requested, Insufficient evidence. Closing.-Bbb23 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter. Now you have Feinoa doing the same trick, he removed all my edits in Hong Kong wikipedia,

I wish to Report double sockpuppet accounts Feinoa , Lightsabr are same person. Close timing and similar edits, they can't be coincidence

The evidence is too strong.

Look at the Singapore talk page

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore&action=history

---> Both User talk:Feinoa and User talk:Lightsabr,

Both User talk:Feinoa and User talk:Lightsabr,

Feinoa timing on 14 September 2019 are both 03:28,[24] 03:25[25], Lightsabr timing both at 03:39[26], 03:42[27] the difference of timing in their editing is way too short.

Also another thing that exposes both Feinoa and Lightsarb, not only do both 90% of their wikipedia edits entirely focuses on Singapore.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Competitiveness_Yearbook&action=history

Both of their wikipedia edits also intentionally removes every data that puts Hong Kong above Singapore in the world competitive year book history.

---> Lightsarb, just putting a 2019 year book and removing all the years from 1997 to 2019, avoiding showing Hong Kong on top [28]

---> Feinoa, does a similar thing by conveniently removing the 2012, 2015, 2016 edits that again avoid showing Hong Kong above Singapore [29]

----> EDIT: I'm now even more convinced they are both the same person. More info added both Feinoa and Lightsarb are also the only ones that reverts edits and defend the lead section of Singapore [30]. Lightsarb reverted the edits of admins/or wiki editors User:Moxy who removed the all unnecessaryfluff in lead section of Singapore [31] and Feinoa also reverted mine [32] who I also removed the leading section of all that unnecessary fluff , both also seems to the only one defending it on this Singapore talk page. There's way too many coincidence fort it not be the same person

DerekHistorian (talk) 11:29 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Got pinged. ...something is a bit off interaction analysis....that said best to read up on how to submit an investigation. it would be unadvisable for Doug to do anything without a proper investigation presented in an open forum.--Moxy 🍁 15:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: articles about cities do not have to all follow the same pattern, that's not a good article. And as User:Moxy has said, I wouldn't touch this without a proper SPI case with CU endorsed by a clerk. You may be right but you're the one with the information, go request it. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again so soon.

I feel that Springee has begun trying to target or goad me as some form of retaliation for @Bishonen:'s topic ban of Jweiss11. I'm not sure where the best place to report it would be, and I'm going to take the night and maybe a day or two off. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@6YearsTillRetirement: timeout is often a good idea. Avoid, make sure you always take the highroad and stay civil. Don't feel you always have to respond. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am definitively not a sockpuppet [33] and I do not have any responsibility to give someone my personal information but Springee keeps trying to accuse me of it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Squatting position

I have started a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. It is about much more than "unencyclopedic trivia, poorly sourced, highly excessive image galleries, etc.". You need to understand the subject in detail. I suggest it is not polite to delete text which is being discussed on the talk page. People casually looking at the article are not likely to bother with doing a diff to view your deleted text even if they did look at the talk page. If you understand the subject it is most definately not trivial. I am very against trivia on Wikipedia and can point to many trivial and obscure articles or text on Wikipedia which should be deleted. The point about highly excessive images is not valid there are quite a few articles on Wikipedia with more images including B8 polytope with 2,429. WP:IGNORE exists for a reason and if you understood the article more deeply you are likely to understand my perspective.--Penbat (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Penbat: and I replied. Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Squatting is an odd scientific blindspot. Yet we all do elements of it every day - it is hardly obscure or trivial. Young children for example do it instinctively. The images do not lie. There is no research available to refute the images.--Penbat (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles have vast swathes of uncited material. I am sure I would not be allowed to go around Wikipedia deleting every bit of uncited text in sight and then say "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy". Please give me policy link. If it was that simple, why is there not a bot to delete all uncited material automatically. You have not taken the context into consideration.--Penbat (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't you using the article talk page? And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference. If you want further discussion use the article talk page so that others can see your concerns. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You triggered my response here because you made a response here "@Penbat: and I replied. Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it." in response to my first paragraph basically telling you that there is a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. Incidentally I have no idea what "it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference." means. It was not new, most of it was years old, but I am not sure what your point is. You have done it again, you have made a further point here triggering me to respond here again instead of the correct place which is Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies.--Penbat (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Weasel words: [34][35]. Haven't checked his other edits but they need to be checked as well. Puduḫepa 04:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: no recent edits though, let me know if there are more problems. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I have to ask advice again

User:Mcrt007 and User:Springee are an... interesting coincidence. Especially the way they both attack Arun Gupta, who is a longstanding journalist. [36]6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement I'll repeat here what I've mentioned on Ngo's talk page: you have linked to a muckrack page to present Gupta's credentials.

• 1) That page contains false positives which inflate the number of articles attributed to Gupta (in Reliable Sources), by orders of magnitude because it can't differentiate between different individuals having the same (Arun Gupta) name. Here are some examples of articles wrongly attributed to him, in the RS from the list you linked to: in the New York Times which talks about a different Arun Gupta, just like Chemical Science, inc42, O'Reilley, Pediatrics, and others.
• 2) Gupta does seem to have lots of articles in:

• Counter-Punch which seems to be a rather questionable source (with some history of smear and disinformation per Wikipedia),
• Telesur, described by wikipedia RS page as "Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered.",
• Raw story, Alternet, etc.

The Intercept profile you list here says he has written for The Washington Post as well. He only seems to have one article there and that one is about food. In Jacobin (to which you linked first in the discussion) he has 2 anti-Ngo opinion articles and another article on some food-chef. Claiming he's a reliable source for being a "longstanding journalist" or for publishing in Jacobin is not reasonable. Gupta is primarily a food-journalist (graduate of the French Culinary Institute in New York) who writes opinions about what he reads and it's not justified (undue weight) to create an entire section (17-18 rows), on Ngo's Wikipedia page, based on his Jacobin article. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Isaiah 3 sons

You state Isaiah has 3 sons in Wikipedia.

Isaiah: 9:6 For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace)

---

Isaiah- "the prophet" Wife - No stated name. Simply designated "the prophetess"

Carefully note even the chronological order of verses leading to 9.6. with the application of simple logic and biological factuality.

Isaiah 7.3 - Here we see Isaiah's FIRSTBORN SON. Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and "Shear-Jashub your son", at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,

Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The "virgin will conceive" and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. ( So here Isaiah prophesied what MANY can't understand to this very day. )

Isaiah 8.1 Then the LORD said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary stylus: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. ( Here YHWH gives him the " stated "name" of his SECOND SON to come..in advance..as yet UNKNOWN to Isaiah.)

Isaiah 8.3 And I had relations with the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. The LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz." ( What was Isaiah to name HIS SECOND SON? It's unequivocally restated as his name to be given. You must agree it was ISAIAH that had relations ie sexual relations with the stated "prophetess" his " wife " )

So..Can you explain how the "prophetess".. Isaiah's "wife"..became a "virgin" AFTER HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS AND SLEEPING WITH Isaiah prior and ALREADY bearing the FIRST SON Shear-Jashub  ??

Isaiah 8.5 -9.6 And the LORD SPOKE to me FURTHER (Incidentally these leadup verses God is speaking through Isaiah prophesying the coming of the Messiah) .... Here YHWH is on about 7.14 AGAIN.

I shall put it to you that Isaiah only had TWO "physical" SONS in his breathing lifetime. I shall put it to you that nowhere in the entirety of ALL scripture can any woman be or suddenly become a "virgin" AFTER a FIRST BIRTH. So unless it's contended it is possible for that to happen, then it must be conceded that "the prophetess" is NOT the prophesied "virgin" that shall conceive. I shall put it to you that the "virgin" prophesied of was Mary, Mother of Jesus EXACTLY as stated in scripture. I shall put it to you that the NAMES in the entirety of scripture are HIGHLY SPECIFIC and that no ' son of Isaiah by HIS physical seed' would remotely bear the title "Mighty God" or "Possessor of Eternity" I shall put it to you that YESHUA is the one prophesied of that bears these titles and EXACTLY as in the entirety of ALL scripture has numerous "Names and Titles"

Thanks. If you could kindly correct the Wikipedia would be great. Nevi Gabriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.99.133.76 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nedochan:, please use your account to edit. What you are doing here is forbidden by policy - see no original research. And I never wrote anything about him having two sons. However, a quick search shows that this is a disputed area, which some sources saying two, others at least two, and others three (with names). [37] This Cambridge University book An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures by Thomas Hartwell Horne , Samuel Davidson , and Samuel Prideaux Tregelle[38] sayts " We learn from various passages that Isaiah was married and had three sons (vii. 3., viii. 3. 18.) with symbolical names, Shear-jashub, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and Immanuel.". So our article needs to say that the number of sons is disputed. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

11 years of adminship!

Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Doug, I somehow tripped the rollback on your alert at User talk:Morningrat and the filter interrupted my first self-revert. Home Lander (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Home Lander: not a problem, I didn't notice it and was able to give the new editor some advice without any problems. --Doug Weller talk 16:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Itsspokenmonkey seems to be back

@Doug Weller: It seems that Itspokenmonkey (talk · contribs) has made his reappearance as 206.71.232.226 (talk · contribs), with the same kind of disruptive behavior. He's done more than just that on more than one page. Can you do something about this? Cheers, Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

update: I just noticed that he also created a new sock Helloimcooldx (talk · contribs). I have little doubt that it is him, going by the use of -dx in his name, and his old hobbyhorse, that Italian is spoken all over the planet. Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No time today, will look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! He seems to have cooled down somewhat, so there is no hurry. Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: still no more edits. The posible sockmaster is stale so far as CU goes so it would have to be WP:DUCK. Let me know if there's any more activity, ok? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Uploading an Image to Wikipedia article "Susya"

Hi, Doug. I wanted to ask you about the Wikipedia article Susya, an article describing a historical site with a rich post-Temple Jewish history, but also an article which falls under the category of those articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Because of its historical nature, I wish to upload an image of a mosaic discovered at this site and which you can see here. The one problem is that currently there is an outstanding ban against my engaging in edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, until the current ban will be rescinded, hopefully, in due time, after I submit an appeal to my topic ban. So, my question to you is rather simple. Does my topic ban include the prohibition of posting an image or images to articles that fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, can I ask someone else to upload the image(s) for me, for the improvement of those articles? Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I got your message. No problem, Doug. I'll just have to learn patience and respect the rules here on Wikipedia. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Email.

Check yours, Heiro 21:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP question and the use of ISFDB as a BLP source

Hello. I noticed what you had done in a recent WP:BLP case on 14:36, 5 September 2019, in Special:Diff/914156238 for Ryk E. Spoor. I would like to have your opinion about editors using the Internet Speculative Fiction Database as their sole source for biographic information (i.e., date/year of birth). Since anyone can register and edit this database per WP:UGC, I would consider that website as reliable as Wikipedia for that type of information and doubt that such information would satisfy WP:VERIFY.

In particular, an editor removed my {{CN}} tags that I had just added in a similar case for Edward M. Lerner. Was the editor incorrect for removing my {{CN}} tags as he/she did in Special:Diff/915698809? Was I correct to question the inclusion of the year of birth in the article in the first place? What is your sage opinion on this matter? Thanks you in advance. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, although I'm not sure I deserve them at least here. The issue was raised some time ago by User:Mike Christie[39] who makes some good points. There does seem to be some sort of editorial control, but is it good enough and complete? It's mentioned here. But if you read their faq and look at the bits that mention verification[40] and at how authors are added[41] I'm thinking that the verification process does not include biographical details, which means probably usually ok for bibiliographical details but not biographical. Take a look at Robert Heinlein's author page[42] which shows no sign of verification, but if you look at one of his book pages[43] it does. This probably needs to go to RSN but I think most would agree with me unless they can find evidence to the contrary. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear and detailed reply. It is especially great that you are able to remembered these little tidbits of useful information which I would never find on my own (especially since I was not there for those discussions). I agree with you that ISFDB should be considered as a verifiable source for bibiliographical information, almost in the same respect that I consider IMDb a verifiable source about released TV/film productions since it is relatively easy to verify publication information for works that were released to the general public for purchase. The question that I propose to you is how does either ISFDB or even IMDb obtain and/or confirm birth information of an author in cases where the author (or the author's parents) had never publicly released such information (i.e., on their personal website, in their books, in a published interview, in a newspaper article concerning the person in an unrelated event, etc.)? Did those database contributors go to the state/county registrars to obtain birth certificates (which may not be legal in certain locations)? Illegally obtain medical or credit information? Sourced from the dark web? In an age of identity thief and criminal stalking, most people have a right to not publicly disclose identifiable information. Should Wikipedia propagate birth information from either ISFDB or IMDb if such information cannot be independently verify? How do we know that either databases had not originally obtained information illegally? Do you think it is worth our effort to have these questions concerning biographically information discussed on those forums that you had mentioned above since it would be nice to have published guidelines on which databases can be used as a source of verifiable biographically information. Thanks again. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with Doug that ISFDB should only be used for bibliographical information. The biographical data could come from almost anywhere, but we should not treat it as reliable. For example I put in the correct date of birth for myself and my wife -- I'm not sure there's any other reliable source for that information. Of course we're not notable enough for a Wikipedia article but the biographical data for other writers may well be just as inappropriately sourced. For pure bibliographic information I think it's completely fine, though I would not use it to source a negative such as "this story has never been reprinted" since it does (rarely) miss an obscure or recent edition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thanks. I think we should go to RSN now to get agreement, which hopefully we'll get. Thoughts? Doug Weller talk 11:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but I've tried twice and had no response. I'll comment there if someone else posts, but as it stands I am using it until someone objects. The use of ISFDB has passed muster in some FACs, if that's worth noting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you for participating in this discussion. Is it normal for admins on administrative noticeboards to ignore some discussions and not make a comment one way or the other? Do those administrators require more examples before they deem a noticeboard request worthy of a comment? Or does it require more editors to make comments just to start those discussions? As for your self-editing your DOB on ISFDB, do you think it might have been possible for you to change the date to make yourself appear a few years older/younger than you really are? Would it be possible for someone to verify what you had added without resorting to checking your credit and medical records? -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no requirement for anyone to participate in any particular discussion, but if someone had a strong opinion in either direction they would probably say something if they saw the posting. It's not so much about requiring examples, more about whether anyone has an opinion or is interested. Since all three comments so far have been positive about the use of the bibliographic data I would say we can continue using it unless someone else objects. Yes, I could easily have given the wrong birthdate there without anyone knowing. You're welcome to try to find my date of birth (or that of my wife, Sherry Coldsmith, who was a slightly more successful writer than I was) on the web; I'll be impressed if you can find a reliable source that gives it -- I only ever sold one story and Sherry sold a handful, so we're not covered anywhere (though I did get a tiny mention in SFE3, perhaps only because I know some of the compilers). I wrote many of the help pages for the ISFDB and I know that much more attention is paid to verifying bibliographic data that to verifying biographical data, which makes sense if you think of the mission of the site -- they're never going to be the SF Encyclopedia; they're just adding that data as a convenience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the interesting info. For anything other than Wikipedia, lazy me would just get your DOB from ISFDB . Just out of curiosity, how many of the listed authors in ISFDB are yet to be identified pen names? I would expect a small handful of person who do not want to have their hobby of being a minor SF writer than never appear in public interfere with their real life and would just add biographic information to provide better cover. Since IMDb is a similar type of database for the film/video industry, I have noticed that there has been over a dozen noticeboard discussion, but no real discussion directly about biographical information in particular, just a recommendation that appears to full of weasel words. We just now have to wait and see how the ISFDB noticeboard discussion is going to turn out. Thanks to both of you. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No idea what percentage of the names in ISFDB are unidentified pennames, but it's only a tiny percentage of the fiction -- I can't think of any prominent author for whom the real identity isn't known. There are certainly people who used a pseudonym for the reason you suggest -- Eric Temple Bell , Alice Sheldon, and Paul Linebarger are examples -- but usually the real identities are known. There's a book called "Who's Hugh?" by Roger Robinson which cross-references all the pseudonyms known at the time of publication (1987); it lists ones for which the real identity is unknown, but there aren't many of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: do you intend in joining in the RSN discussion? Doug Weller talk 12:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I did post a short note there agreeing with you, and it looks to me as if there's sufficient comment for us to say that there's a consensus to use bibliographic but not biographical data. Do you think further discussion is needed there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Roger Robinson's publication sounds quite interesting. I wonder if his publication also includes authors of short stories that were published in magazines or other anthologies who never published a book. I would assume that this group of writers would represent the bulk of the authors that might be included in ISFDB. I wonder how many women authors who might have used male names in the past when the publishing industry was overly white male dominated and those women authors did not have live long enough to reveal their true identities during more tolerant times. Michael Crichton had used several pen names when he needed extra money while attending medical school. (Those early works are definitely not his best works.) I think he only publicly revealed his involvement with those early works after he quit medicine and became a famous writer. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Who's Hugh" does contain pseudonyms used only for short stories. There's no question it'll be missing some, for the reasons you suggest, but for the period up to 1987 it does a pretty thorough job as far as we can tell -- that is, there are very few writers who are interesting to historians of sf for whom the true identity is unknown. I can think of other examples of writers who wrote pseudonymously early in their careers -- John Brunner and Barry Malzberg come to mind, and in some cases not all early pseudonyms are acknowledged. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Edit Warring

I must say that I am a little worried than a user who has supposedly been and admin for "11 years and 4 days" is unaware what edit warring is and what is and what isn't constituted such. In most cases the three revert rule applies (3rr), but in the case of vandalism, such as removal of content including refs which is where such pointless warnings are supposed to be used, "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." The three edit rule is impossible as I have not even made three edits to the article in question according to the last 999 edits as as shown by my summaries, I reverted vandalism in both counts. Even if I had broken the 3rr, the exemption covers me even if having meat puppets pile in is the generally preferred option.UaMaol (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Uamal: indeed I did make a mistake, for some reason I thought you'd made 2 reverts on the same article. However you are confused about what is exempt and I guess I should thank you for bringing my attention to your edit summaries. First, you used Twinkle's 'revert good faith edits'. That's an announcement to everyone that you were not reverting vandalism. But your edit summary at National Front (UK) called the edit by User:Midnightblueowl vandalism. Since their edit was clearly not WP:VANDALISM that's a personal attack. As is your nonsense about meat puppets. Make sure that if you ever decide to call people meat puppets you only do that at WP:ANI. Your other revert didn't mention vandalism at all so I can't see how you think it's exempt. I'm going to copy this to your user page because they are important points. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Kush

In a manner very similar to how the Noba and Nobatae established dominance over the former Kushite empire, multiple groups of Blemmyes temporarily established successor states over formerly Kushite territories. This is commented on in books like Torok's handbook to Meroitic-Napatan civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Alizabeth Blon is back

See the latest revisions at Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard. Can you do the needful when you have a chance?—Chowbok ☠ 00:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chowbok: it looks to me as though Pending Changes is working though and those edits aren't being accepted. PC expires 16 November. Weird, it was protected twice at exactly the same time, for both Pending Changes and autoconfirmed/confirmed access. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sergeant Stubby

Ok Doug, you are an administrator so I have no choice but to do what you say, but can we come to a consensus on calling Stubby a Boston Bull Terrier and leave the 8 verified sources there for further reading? I took a look at the Boston Terrier page and that's exactly what Stubby looks like, but the Bull Terrier pictures look nothing like Stubby so I hate to say Stubby was a Bull Terrier in any manner when so many sources say Boston Terrier or Boston Bull Terrier and only one or two verified sources say Bull Terrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profpedia (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators are not dictators. However, Doug is an experienced editor or Wikipedia, and it is well worth listening to his advice. Your opinion of what Stubby looked like is original research, and cannot be used in an article. He had no pedigree, and so we have no reliable information that he belonged to any breed. - Donald Albury 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bornanomaly and Cahokia, again

Per {this message I left them https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABornAnomaly&type=revision&diff=916642066&oldid=902894171}, I'd appreciate your keeping an eye on this situation. It's one thing to remove valid material, but to call other editors "racists" while doing it unacceptable. It's an old edit, I haven't been on in several months as it was a busy summer work wise and only now noticed it, so no use in dragging them to a board now, but I get the feeling they are WP:NOTHERE. Heiro 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Native American pyramids

I meant to sort out what was valid and useful from this edit[44] but didn't get around to it. I noticed the other deletion but just couldn't find the sources to help. Lack of time I guess, I never have enough time. Recently I've been listening to Ancient Civilizations of North America' by Edwin Barnhart.[45] which I got as an Audible book, not that silly price. He pushes hard for noting that the "mounds" in North America are pyramids and that the word mound diminishes them. I went to Category:Pyramids in the United States and found only modern buildings - you can see I've added the category a few places but not nearly enough, and I'm wondering if we should be doing more, maybe starting with Mound builders. He also notes that the oldest pyramid in the world is in Brazil. See this but I can't find any academic literature for it. Interested in helping? Is it worth adding something to a couple of Wikiprojects about the issue? Doug Weller talk 08:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I see why, I just added two tags to Category talk:Pyramids in the United States - it was only about architecture before. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one earlier as well. I literally haven't logged on in months, sometimes when I've been away for awhile I check on the usual targets just to see if an instance has slipped by everyone else when I was away (invariable a few have here and there) and immediately noticed the edit summary at Cahokia. I didn't even remember who the editor was for a minute or so. At least one of the cites for the Adena material is good, an academic source discussing precolumbian art. I decided I didn't have the time to delve either.

Almost all of the contemporary academic literature describes the "platform mounds" as pyramids, as they have more in common both in construction and function with Mesoamerican pyramids than they do with earlier Woodland Period mound constructions in the eastern US. I'm sure Tim Pauketats (he really should have an article here) work must discuss it somewhere if not multiple somewheres, but I'm tired after a long day in the studio working on a project (it's 4:30 AM here and I just knocked off for the day, lol ) and my brain isn't currently firing on all cylinders. I've tried to reform the moundbuilders article over the years, and at least managed to shift it over to discussing the actual cultures instead of the 19th century monomyth (last time I checked it anyway). It's been hard enough just getting the term "moundbuilder" removed from articles discussing archaeological sites that are widely disparate in time, geography, and culture and whose only similarity is having a "mound" (and I never fully succeeded at that). And there are literally several hundred articles about sites with platform mounds. If I can, I'll try to see what I can find on the subject.

As for Ancient Civilizations of North America', too bad you didn't get the whole thing, they licensed almost 2 dozen of my illustrations for the video part. But then again you have probably already seen most of them, ;-). Hope it's good, it sounded like an awesome series, and I've listened to other of their lectures before and loved them. Heiro 09:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, this article by David H. Dye and James Brown literally discusses the them of decapitation and trophy taking in Amerindian societies within Mississippian culture and at Cahokia specifically. I linked it for the editor the first time they went on their deletion spree, it's still on their talk page in the very first message I left them. It even has a photograph of the repousse copper plate the illustration they object to is based on. Heiro 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, in your opinion, do the "temple mounds" of the Safety Harbor culture (Safety Harbor culture#Mounds) qualify as pyramids? - Donald Albury 17:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: see its website. Sure, the painting is just an interpretation, but given that and their description as pyramidal mounds, they seem to qualify. This book ]https://smile.amazon.com/Late-Prehistoric-Florida-Archaeology-Mississippian/dp/0813040140/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_3905707922?_encoding=UTF8&ie=UTF8&qid=1569260283&sr=1-1] says the Fort Walton culture had pyramidal mounds also, which makes sense. I found that statement searching the book on Amazon, looks like a great book, Doug Weller talk 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say they were, even though Safety Harbor isn't a Mississippian culture, and the mounds are sand and shell instead of "dirt". And Fort Walton culture is a Mississippian culture variant. But that's one of the reasons I always stuck with "platform mounds". It's only fairy recently that archaeologists are really emphasizing that the structures functioned as pyramids. I'm not sure it's even in a lot of the literature yet. Where is the demarcation line? By size? By culture? By era? Most platform mounds started as small affairs, some literally only 2 feet in height. For many of the smaller sites they never got much bigger. Same function as the larger ones presumably, but are they still "pyramids"? Going from Woodland period to Troyville and Plum Bayou cultures, the function of mounds changed, from a mainly burial function to a kind of raised platform co-opted by elites that more truly resemble Mesoamerican pyramids in function. Do we do it on a case by case basis where in the literature they are described by archaeologists as pyramids? Monks Mound definitely qualifies. I always worried it would be an uphill battle article by article explaining and citing why the mounds at that site are also "pyramids". I'm still sure Time Pauketat would be the best bet for finding it in the literature. Here's an excerpt from one of his books [46]. Heiro 18:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it be better to have a category for platform mounds as a sub of pyramids? - Donald Albury 22:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

IP at Plagues of Egypt

Hi Doug,

121.45.217.141 over at Plagues of Egypt keeps removing the tag I added to a sentence in the history section, claiming it was not discussed on talk. In fact it was, see Talk:Plagues of Egypt#historicity. That sentence was the only one I could see as specifically "lopsided" (i.e. it leaves out the fact that scholarly consensus is that some event or other inspired the biblical Exodus narrative). It was also added by banned user Fajkfnjsak. Would you mind stepping in? The IP in question already has several warnings.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisions you reversed

Good Morning

The revisions I made to both Derrick Levasseur, and Josh Gates, are in fact, correct. I watch Breaking Homicide weekly (the new & second season began just last week, in Canada, on Investigation Discovery. This can easily be confirmed by simply Googling the show title, Breaking Homicide. As well, Josh Gates is very open about his family, in fact, showing the christening of his new daughter, on an episode of Expedition Unknown - Life After Death, and announcing it on Instagram.

I rarely make corrections to any page on Wiki, out of respect for the writer, but both pages contain incorrect, or at the least, out of date information. The information I corrected, is easily corroborated online. Thank you for your polite message. Much appreciated. Take care, and have a good day.

Tkmbangel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkmbangel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tkmbangel: I'm not challenging their correctness, but we still need sources meeting WP:RS, especially for bviographies of living people. That's how we work. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:216.168.139.237

Despite two warnings, this editor continues to disrupt. Would it be a good idea to show we mean business with a short block? Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Penbat (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What to do?

Hi Doug Weller, any suggestions on how to deal with this issue? Some user is making revisionistic edits, giving every single pre-modern figures a nationality, as seen here [47] (apparently a 23rd-century BC figure living in Sumer is "Iraqi", this is just one of many). He has likewise been making a ton of these nationality categories as well [48], which he is spamming across this site. More or less all his edits have been something like that. I would like to point this out as well [49]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@History of Iran: try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East. I have to tell you I'm getting out of some areas as I'm just too stretched. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, that place is more or less dead. I see, I guess I'll have to try somewhere else then. Thanks anyways. --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on DS procedures, but have self blocked... if appro please repost somewhere

Hi Doug! Please recall that with the pending ANI against me I have self blocked while prepping a reply /w boomerang. As a result, I find myself in a fun Catch-22. At ANI there is a different thread - one that does not involve me - but I would like to comment. Specifically, there is a good faith proposal to add a layer of behavior rules on top of ARBCOM's instructions for the DS Alert templates. The specific diff that caught my eye was this one. Usually I would name the other ed with {{u}} but given my self block that might be taken as being sneaky and my whole point in writing to you is transparency and honoring the self block... so I won't name them, even though I want to say something nice..... their heart is obviously in the right place. However, the idea would cause unintended damage. I was tempted to add a comment to that thread explain my view, then realized the Catch-22, that I self blocked. And so... if you think my thoughts below are beneficial to the discussion, would you please copy them somewhere in that thread, with a small note of explanation? To be clear, I'm not asking you to endorse my thoughts, only to help with a procedural problem. The comment would read....

HLHJ, thanks for trying to make DS Alerts better, however I think the proposal would have unintended negative consequences. The DS Alerts approved by ARBCOM in 2014 are already well-thought out and have neither badge of shame nor threat if they are used according to the already-existing instructions. If fragile editors do not educate themselves by reading the links in the template, or having read them still won't accept the template as a no-fault strictly FYI notice, that's their burden to bear. No procedural rules can erase such fragility from human nature. It is not clear what language you would use. How does anyone measure whether a nofault FYI was intended as a threat or just as a nofault FYI notice? Even if it were possible to write enforceable text, it would still amount to an amendment of ARBCOM's decision. Only ARBCOM can hear motions to amend. And finally, in my view Arbcom would be foolish to add a behavioral filter involving subjective notion of "threatening". That's so ill-defined that drama warriors will leap on it as a new thing to fight about ("YOU THREATENED ME" with the notice!) To avoid that drama, people won't pass these things out unless there is a clear vio to point at. Thus, after a whole year talking about how to de-stigmatice them, we will have reincarnated the badge of shame, just like it was back in 2012. Just post them per the instructions and calmly talk about it with anyoen who thunders "Why did you do that?" Incidentally, before I pass one out to anyone else, I make sure I have my own on my own talk page to point at. "See? Its just a harmless notice, I have one too....." Happy editing, may all your wiki adventure avoid drama. ~~~~

Doug, If you think that can be shared without me violating the self-block, could you please help me out by posting it someplace where it might make a valuable contribution to the discussion? And if you don't think that's a worthy thing to do during my self-block, no problem. Forget I said anything.

Either way, thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think there's no point. I can't see those suggestions gaining traction, far too detailed and there's always been a string dislike of that degree of policy creep. At least wait until we can see how it goes. I've not been following that debate. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, I have no clue what it was all about, just found it by accident when looking for text "DS" in my own thread. Thanks for your time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bardrick

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Longtime editor editing while logged out regarding this editor. This is the case I emailed you about, that I believe you forwarded to Berean Hunter. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Adam and Eve Continued

Would this to be good to add to historicity section of Adam and Eve? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/04/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-existence-adam-eve-column/3826195002/ Sswamida (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Genetic genealogy

Your edit was incorrect regarding the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy

Full Genomes is specifically listed in this article and I quote: "The pair also credit the data crunching of Greg Magoon, a senior researcher at Aerodyne Research who is doing the DNA Doe work in collaboration with the Full Genomes Corporation."

Please stop editing this page without any expertise or credentials. Otherwise, I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.119.84 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, credentials are not required. Sorry I was wrong about the source but it still needs an article first to be included. Your edits seem promotional. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, because the sources clearly show the involvement of that group in the work and it is not advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:C402:6EE0:3DE1:5F5D:56E6:3E87 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I made the reference more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:C402:6EE0:3DE1:5F5D:56E6:3E87 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: CFD

Jinx :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Idea Lab

FYI, despite my email I decided to let some time pass to increase chances that when (if) I do propose it the topic will remain focused on the concept in general rather than accidentally reigniting recent past wars. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of comment re George Soros

Dear Doug Weller You have removed something I put on the Talk page for the George Soros page. I had questioned whether Wikipedia might have a conflict of interest since Mr Soros donated to Wikimedia. The trouble is, by removing my comment so promptly you haven't defeated a conspiracy theory; you've strengthened one. Do we not have any right to speculate about where Wiki gets its money and at what cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean1954 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Talkpages aren't a forum for conspiracy theories on other topics (or for conspiracy theories in general). If you want to complain about Soros and Wikipedia, go see the WMF. Soros's talkpage is for discussion about his biographical article. Additionally, the idea that anybody who gives money to the WMF gets special treatment from the editing community is naive - the community's relationship with the WMF isn't always harmonious. Don't abuse talkpages for conspiracy theory promotion, especially in biographies. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia talk pages are there to discuss the content of the associated main space page, not to meddle in conspiracy theories. Wikimedia has marginal influence on the contents of Wikipedia pages. Editorial independence of the project has been repeatedly reinforced, most recently in the WP:FRAM debacle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well OK, but I seem to see a lot of 'Talk' pages that contain discursive material. Perhaps not all pages get monitored so closely?Dean1954 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)We are volunteers, and the number of editors who watch a particular page varies, so, indeed, some articles are watched by more editors than others. I would also add that while talk pages are supposed to be used for discussions on how to improve the article, discussions are not heavily policed as long as they do not become disruptive. Pushing a conspiracy theory is something I would consider disruptive. - Donald Albury 13:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC) - edited - Donald Albury 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

/* External links */

Hello, I added a very valid, solidly researched article to the external links page of King Arthur, with cited credible resources about King Arthur and it was removed. Please explain how a historical second sourced article about the subject is a conflict of interest? Obviously you did not open the link. Please do not assume malicious intent.

Intrigue Generis (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Kind regards, Intrigue (author and historian)

Note that the editor was blocked both for his username which is the same as his website and for promoting his website. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:169.227.254.10

There's a solid run of disruption from this user, with warnings for most of this year. Surely it's time to follow thru on them? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm

Oldstone James. Pro GamerGate, pro Answers in Genesis, pro scientific racism - looking for anything where he's on the correct side of history. Guy (help!) 23:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Call me out if this qualifies as stalking, but just to clarify: I'm strictly anti-Answers in Genesis (I'm a hard atheist by "faith"), anti-scientific racism, and not informed on the issue of GamerGate (I consequently realised that my edit on Sargon of Akkad was, in fact, unjustified upon further research). I'm also strictly anti-pseudoscience and fringe science, which I believe both AiG and EmDrive qualify as.

Here's what I am pro of:

• Correct representation of different organisations' beliefs (at the time I was editing on AiG's the page, their views were severely misrepresented, and verifiably so; despite numerous protests by "experienced editors", most of the misinformation has since been corrected), even if these beliefs are pseudoscientific.
• NPOV. I believe that views should be represented in accordance to the amount and validity of evidence that supports them. I also believe that enough evidence supports the correlation between (self-identified) "race" and intelligence (as estimated by IQ). I further believe that some of these differences in intellegence are explained by genetics, but that's another issue, and I agree that there is currently no hard, scientific evidence to support this view.
• Minimising the chances of Wikipedia being wrong. The statement that EmDrive is incorrect has some very slim chances of being false. These chances can be reduced to zero were the wording to stay as it currently is.
• Wikipedia policies being the same for everyone. There are numerous examples of Wikipedians with higher authority being allowed more than Wikipedians with a bad reputation, like myself. Most of these instances are too minor to warrant a block by themselves, but they do add up to be extremely disruptive, and in fact were by far the most predominant cause of my unacceptable behaviour which led to my topic ban.

But my behaviour was not only reason why I was topic-banned. If you have a look at the ANI thread where my topic ban was discussed, you'll see that most of the support !votes were accompanied by arguments that were based on false assumptions about me: be it about something that I reportedly hadn't done (when I have) or about my intent (which was previously stated). And making false assumptions is what you seem to be doing now. Now, I do understand that you were NOT talking to me and are free to express whatever opinion it is that you like to express, but making ungrounded assumptions about something/someone is always dangerous, as my topic ban proved (that's not to say that I didn't deserve it, by the way). Hopefully, you understand my position, and I really hope that you understand that I, at this point, have total respect for you as an editor (as I haven't seen you do anything I don't believe to be correct yet), and the absolute sole intent of this message is clarification and genuine concern.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 01:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Race (human categorization)

I find your revdels at Race (human categorization) odd, and possibly mistaken. Most of the content Ephert added in that article, as far as I remember, was transcluded from Template:Morning 2007 Table 1, which still exists. I for one don't think it constitutes copyright violation as lists and statistics, by themselves, aren't usually considered copyrightable—their organization and presentation can, however, be. (This is not to say the table is free from problems—it has quite a few.)

I also find your failure to comply with WP:LISTGAP here odd, especially for your being a veteran admin. Please do not add empty lines between indented paragraphs from now on. Nardog (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: That wasn't deliberate, and I don't know why it happened when I just did a revert. But doh~ Of course it's the template that's the problem, what was I thinking? Have you seen Ephert's talk page response? If it isn't copyright (ie if it isn't a copy of the organisation and presentation of the material), then why refuse to answer my question? Before I go to delete the table can you show why it isn't a copyright violation? Doug Weller talk 12:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have, and I also find their response quite bizarre, but that wouldn't make a good reason to delete it. The original is linked in the reference, which you can see if you have JSTOR access or via Google Scholar. The organization and presentation are almost identical, so if it was unattributed I'm sure it would be a violation, but I think the table is short enough to be considered a quote (so it's probably best stored in the article itself, not in the template namespace). So in a sense I think it should resemble the source more, not less, but ultimately I think it would be even better if it was presented in prose—that is, if we were to include it at all, which I have no opinion about. Nardog (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say That wasn't deliberate, and I don't know why it happened when I just did a revert? Nardog (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, looks like the edit you deleted was just a transclusion. The table itself is at {{Morning 2007 Table 1}}. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I said at the beginning of this section. The revisions ought to be restored as they were deleted in error. Nardog (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: I was referring to the empty line comment. And I agree it should be in the article if it is a quote. User:Diannaa, can you comment on this? It's a direct copy of the table on p. 443 here.[50] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The empty line comment has nothing to do with your reverting. Perhaps you didn't catch I linked to the diff, "here"? In fact you've also done it in this very section here, as did Guettarda here. Get it together folks, LISTGAP is an accessibility guideline. Nardog (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean about WP:LISTGAP in this context. Can you explain - the guideline talks about lists not ordinary text on a talk page. I know multiple blank lines don't play well with screen readers, but that's an entirely different issue. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm trying to understand this. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller In my opinion the table contains enough creative content to qualify for copyright protection. What we need to do is delete the template. We don't need revision-deletion on the diffs where the table was transcluded into an article though. Regarding the cryptic talk page comment here, perhaps they are impiying that they are the author of the source paper. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: No, I was not implying that I am the author of the source paper by this comment.--Ephert (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm noticing they have made quite a few similar templates, most of which appear to run counter to template guidelines and MOS:DONTHIDE, if not more. Nardog (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Nardog, now I understand the empty line problem. Or I hope I do. @Dianna: thanks for your help here. I was thinking along the same lines as you were about their comment. If that's the case, there's a COI issue also of course. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Inserting blank lines between indented paragraphs not only affects screen readers but is redundant and less semantic. Compare

:A
::B

which results in

<dl>
  <dd>A
  <dl>
    <dd>B</dd>
  </dl>
  </dd>
</dl>

and

:A

::B

which results in

<dl>
  <dd>A</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
  <dd>
    <dl>
      <dd>B</dd>
    </dl>
  </dd>
</dl>

This is also discouraged at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, Help:Talk pages#Indentation, and Wikipedia:Indentation. The fact we still resort to the definition tags for simple indentation is a shame and a better replacement is being deliberated, but we can still be better with what we've got. (But apparently the empty line here results in no difference, so Doug, I apologize for the false accusation.) Nardog (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: no problem, every day I learn something new is a pleasure. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Guettarda, and Diannaa: I've nominated Ephert's templates for deletion here. Nardog (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-open requested move?

Hola. A requested move at Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia was closed with no consensus, which I found rather strange, since WP:COMMONNAME clearly supports a move. I think that the requested move should be re-opened. Any idea how this works? I didn't find anything particulary helpful when reading the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

First, have you asked the user who closed the discussion, User:Sceptre? - Donald Albury 02:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. Guess I'll wait for his answer first then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Instructions for initiating a review of a move discussion closure are at Wikipedia:Move review. The first step listed there is "attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page." Please give the closer a reasonable time to respond (we are all volunteers and are not subject to a work schedule). If the closer's response does not satisfy you, then you may proceed to the next step listed in that process description. - Donald Albury 13:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes yes sure, I'm in no hurry. I'm just a rookie when it comes to requested-move rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: thanks very much for your help here. @History of Iran: I don't see any role for me here now that you know what to do. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Ministries International: 3RR?

Is there a WP:3RR issue at Talk:Creation Ministries International? Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Review

Hello. This page needs attention of a page reviewer. Thanks. Aryzad (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IP and sources

Got to go to gym now, but Shamoun is a worthless source, also jihadwatch etc. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's cool. You're welcome to take responsibility for any of the block evading sock edits you like and agree with, Doug, as you know. I have no problem with that. If we're sure the statements can't be alternatively sourced and that the source isn't just being used as an excuse to remove content they don't like (and in this case it was just the reference) then no problem. I'll continue to revert them while they are evading block(s) though, on principle. If they don't like that they can edit honestly from an unblocked account. Cheers. -- Begoon 06:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: thanks. I revert socks regularly, quite a few yesterday, but in this case they are right so I'm happy to take responsibility. And who is the puppetmaster? Doug Weller talk 07:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole string of IPs - 77.18.57.137, [51], [52] etc. which you can easily see are the same user - you don't need me to tell you why they're obvious. There are several more, but those are the ones I have to hand. Bbb23 could probably tell you more as he checkuser-blocked some of them. -- Begoon 07:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Above editor accuse me of using different IP adresses however this is my only IP address and it’s not blocked as falsely claimed by Begoon. Also on the specific article which without any explanations was reverted by Begoon, I removed unreliable non-notable sources and I explained why I removed these sources. Persecution.org and howtostopthegenocide.org is not a reliable sources. On the article ‘’Muhammad in the Quran, I removed unreliable source wikiislam.org and answeringislam.org, Also Sam Shamoun, David Wood are Christian missionary apologists, and is not a reliable source and should not be used. Why do you keep reverting it when I remove these unreliable sources, Begoon? 77.16.222.245 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    Priceless - you deny being the IP users I listed above, and state "this is my only IP address", from yet another IP address? Yes, dynamic IP addresses change, but there is no doubt whatsoever that these are all the same user, and the blocks are a matter of record. See WP:DENY - blocks apply to a user, not an IP address or account. If I had a dollar for every blocked user who thinks their block shouldn't apply to "good edits" I'd be rich. That would make blocks utterly meaningless. Given the obvious dis-ingenuity I see absolutely no point in engaging with you further. Dishonesty and insulting my intelligence will get you nowhere with me. I won't be responding to you further unless you start being honest. -- Begoon 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Again I do not use several different IP adresses as you falsely claimed, my IP is dynamic and my IP adresses do change time to time (as that’s usually what dynamic IP adresses do), so maybe I should create a account. Please less insulting, belittling and falsely accusing others of things they haven’t done. Thank you. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    So, just to be clear, before I completely disengage - you do deny being the user of the blocked IP address I listed above, and other blocked addresses making the same series of edits? I'd like an answer to that so that I can be certain my implication of dis-ingenuity wasn't misplaced and that you were, in fact, making such a transparently unsupportable assertion. If, instead, this became a prelude to being open and honest, and discussing the possibility of an above-board return to editing after these blocks, and proper, collegial behaviour in future, that would be a different matter - and such a discussion should, in theory, be possible. I won't, though, as I said, continue to engage on a ludicrously, obviously false premise. -- Begoon 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The above edits was made by me, I never denied that in the first place, and if you misunderstood that, then I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. What I denied was the false accusation made by you that I used multiple different IP addresses. What you probably didn’t know (because you never asked me in the first place) is that my IP address changes periodically because I have a dynamic IP address, which means they usually change over time. Maybe I should just create a account so that such accusations of using several different IP addresses and misunderstandings do not happen in the future. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    I understand dynamic IP addresses. However, you clearly seemed to imply that you had never been blocked, and were not, thus, evading a block. The block evasion is the important aspect to me - the fact that it comes from various addresses is incidental, and, to the extent some of the addresses are dynamic, irrelevant. That's the assertion I called disingenuous and transparently false - that you were not block evading (or "ignoring" the fact that you had been blocked). Remember, as I said, a block is on a person, not an account or an IP address... Have you ever edited with an account? You don't need to say which account, I'm just interested. -- Begoon 22:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Not everyone that disagrees with you is a ‘’bot’’ or someone using ‘’multiple different IP addresses’’. I’m quite recent on Wikipedia and I don’t actually use it alot, so I don’t have a account, but I would consider creating one so that false accusations like yours and misunderstandings of other editors don’t happen in the future. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would actually like you to ask me first without just assuming things. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So do you now understand that a block is on the person, and not just a particular IP address, and that you are thus blocked because of your contributions here: [53] and with other IP addresses, making your edits as a person block-evasion? You're still not being completely clear on that point to my reading. I personally see no reason on general principle that you shouldn't be allowed to appeal that block and open an account if the appeal is successful - but I can't see everything - Doug is a WP:CHECKUSER so he might be able to see a fuller picture of your history. -- Begoon 22:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Again, the above edits was made by me, I never denied that in the first place, and if you misunderstood that, then I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. What I denied was the false accusation made by you that I used multiple different IP addresses. What you probably didn’t know (because you never asked me in the first place) is that my IP address changes periodically because I have a dynamic IP address, which means they usually change over time. Maybe I should just create a account so that such accusations of using several different IP addresses and misunderstandings do not happen in the future. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, you posted exactly that, above. My question, though, was: "do you now understand that a block is on the person, and not just a particular IP address, and that you are thus blocked because of your contributions here: [54] and with other IP addresses, making your edits as a person block-evasion? You're still not being completely clear on that point to my reading." If you do now understand that then I guess the next thing would be to consider the appeal I described, with more input from the blocking admin/checkusers. -- Begoon 23:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • That’s because the questions you asked I have already answered. Please do read my replies. Thank you. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    Well, then I apologise for any lack of understanding. There are so many words above. Perhaps you'd nevertheless indulge me, as I hope I have indulged you, by just answering the question I repeated above, in green, on its own, for absolute clarity. If you think that would be "repeating yourself" I apologise, but I honestly don't see a direct, simple answer to that direct, simple question, and it seems the most salient issue, when all's said and done. Thanks. -- Begoon 23:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I don’t the need to repeat myself everytime. I have already answered your question several times now. Thanks. 77.16.222.245 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    But you are continuing to edit, evading your block(s). I can only assume that means that you do not accept that the block(s) apply to you as a person. I think I'm done here - I've honestly tried my best to help, but I do have to say that I'm disappointed that you still refuse to properly engage. It wasn't a difficult question - although I can see you would find the answer "inconvenient". I won't personally revert your current edits right now, but I don't think you're setting yourself on a path to anywhere good. A shame, because you can make some good points and I agree with some of your edits (but not your disruptive, policy-violating methods). You'd quite possibly be a valuable contributor if you edited within the rules and showed some respect for our collaborative environment. I've suggested a way forwards - it's up to you now. -- Begoon 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

    • @Begoon: I've blocked this IP for one week. I saw your message (yesterday?) at another admin's Talk page about a different IP (same person) but didn't block because they had stopped. That seems to be their pattern: the user edits a lot with one IP for a day or two and then jumps to another. Unfortunately, range blocks are not feasible. In the future, coming to my Talk page may get you quicker action. Doug, I did a "rollback all" of the IP's edits. If I reverted something I shouldn't have (based on your comments above), obviously you should feel free to restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

      Bbb23, thank you. I don't, unfortunately, think there is much option, given the pattern. I don't know if there is stuff in their history/previous blocks that would preclude my "suggestion" that they appeal their block(s) and thereafter try to edit honestly and collaboratively, within policy, from a single account, or, indeed, if there is a previous account (which I wouldn't obviously expect to be revealed openly because it would connect IP(s) to named accounts). It does seem to me that they might have some valid contributions which they could make if they were prepared to operate accountably and within policy - but I obviously may not be familiar with all the history in forming that opinion. I'll do as you suggest and notify you of any "returns". -- Begoon 01:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug

Are you online at the moment? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Catalogue of fossil hominids

Hello there. Considering your fields of expertise, could you possibly have a copy of Oakley, Campbell and Molleson's Catalogue of fossil hominids - 2: Europe? Khruner (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing pre-Holocene. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks anyway! Khruner (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding a recent reversion of an edit I made to the Adam page

Hello,

You recently reverted an edit I made on the Adam page, your comment on it was: "Dummy edit: Any expansion of "first man" theory views in science sections should be treated as WP:UNDUE and reverted." I do not understand your reasoning, there is indeed a robust case to be made that is technically possible for humans to have a common ancestor, at least down to a very small group. Why is it not allowed on the page?

Best regards, WhisperWiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperWiker (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have been looking into it further and seems that there is a consensus view among population geneticists that it is indeed possible for all humans to have a common ancestor. I doubt that most of them think thats the case, but it does seem there is a consensus that it actually possible, even if unlikely. According to Wikipedia's rules my edit should be allowed. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperWiker (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Just because one fringe opinion declares that something might be possible, even if there is no actual evidence at all for it in fact happening, does not mean we have to give it the undue weight of including it in an article. Your only purpose here seems to be to insert this fringe speculation into an article. WHY? Heiro 00:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperWiker: the key bit of your source for me is " according to Swamidass, Adam and Eve could have been a special creation whose progeny slowly interbred with the human population that already existed outside the Garden of Eden — people who had descended through the normal evolutionary process." This is a fringe claim that so far as I know has no support from the geneticists who argue for a most recent common ancestor. See WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles case

This is strictly an administrative question for the Signpost's Arbitration report this month. Should your statement at the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence be counted as evidence submitted to the case? Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: yes, but it doesn't make a lot of sense without the quote by me that I didn't repeat. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you think anything was resolved on WP:RS/N about the use of biographic data obtained from ISFDB?

Thank you and Mike Christie for your participation on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data. Do you think that anything constructive was accomplished by the discussion on WP:RS/N?

Lacking a clear decision, I doubt that I can use that discusion as a reason for me to re-add a {{CN}} tag to the dubious DOB claim for the Edward M. Lerner article since the tag is only going to removed again. It is just my opinion that birth information on BLP articles should always be accompanied by a citation since some people may consider such information as private. The very fact that the author did not include his birth information on his personal website, not included in his books and not mentioned in his interviews (that I can find), indicates to me that the author may consider this piece of information as private and should not be included on Wikipedia without a clear reference to a reliable source. Thanks again. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd be justified in re-adding the tag, with an explanatory edit summary, but I think it would be better to put a note on the talk page, pinging the other editor, and give a link to the RSN discussion as justification for removing the date or adding a cn tag. That might lead to agreement, and if not you could ask for others to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The link is actually [55] (although funnily enough I see I took part in the discussion at archive 27, 10 years ago). User:Mike Christie I think the RSN discussion was sufficient to remove the date as we should always err on the side of caution for BLPs. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; yes, it's a BLP and that should be the default approach. A ping to the other editor is still a good idea, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is amazing that by accidentally leaving off a single digit from the link to Archive 273 lead to a similar discussion at Archive 27. What are the chances of that happening? But seriously, I thank both you and Mike for your wise advice since those Noticeboard discussions appear not as straightforward as the AfD discussions with their Keep and Delete or Support and Oppose votes on other boards. As per your advice, I will first post a discussion on the article's Talk page with my plans to remove the DOB information and the rational behind it to give the the other editor fair warning before I delete the the DOB per WP:BLP. Do you think that is sufficient to prevent possible edit warring problems in the future since the editor in question seems to spending 80% of his/her time editing that one article. Thanks to the both of you. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

pyramid power

Okay, so what are your reasons for denial of published Russian scientific research? Elspru (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnain

hello I'm new here and I don't know all the rules here but everything I added about Dhul Qarnain were direct tranlations from persian page of Dhul Qarnain: ذواقرنین and the references are exactly from Persian page. I know I didn't add summary but I don't Understand what went wrong that you deleted them. it took much of my time. sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminamin1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Doug Weller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory--not always derogatory

Doug, You really think the Skeptical Inquirer is on par with Oxford University Press? And that the former does not have an ax to grind on this issue? It is not that my reference is more nuanced, it is that its conclusion is more nuanced, and in fact conflicts with the Skeptical Inquirer's conclusion, which lacked any nuance. So, I removed the part of the sentence that was contradicted by the clearly much better reference. Please explain how the sentence is more defensible the way it is. Otherwise I will reinstate my edit. (By the way, this is not the only line of evidence that shows that the current version overstates the case.) Knuteson (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knuteson: this really is a discussion that belongs on the article's talk page so that others can take part. Note that there's nothing wrong with using sources that disagree, although a very quick glance shows that it was used at least once in a disparaging way in the 19th century. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether it was ever used disparagingly back then. It is a question of whether it always was. The Skeptical Inquirer article argues that it was. But that does not appear to be true. Knuteson (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete Cyrus' name

What was the reason for removing Cyrus' name from the Zul Qarnain page? While the source was valid. Please return the name of Cyrus the Great . Please return the name of Cyrus the Great Reza235 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reza235: why should I try to help someone who called me a racist and who has asked this question at the article's talk page and although it's been answered, continues to ask it? Doug Weller talk 14:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm sorry for having told you racist and I hope you'll forgive me. Coming soon with credible sources, do you accept Persian and Arabic sources?

@Doug Weller: Dear Doug, I'll be back tomorrow with credible sources but don't know what the reason for the removal of Cyrus the Great? Since most of the material you have removed is from authentic sources, there is no English source for Zul Qarn and Alexander's source, so how did you not remove Alexander? I say to credible sources that Zul Qarnain is Gyrus and I provide strong evidence that he is not Alexander, if you do not accept your purpose is bad and I spread this mistake in the media and inform the Iranian people. This is not a personal attack and I respect you and you deserve respect, my only request is to be fair and let the reader read the authoritative material, if I am rude, I will apologize again. I respect Alexander the Great. Hope you are successful in all stages of life and do not forget that I love you and my goal is to provide credible content. Reza235 (talk)

@Doug Weller: I have made a promise and cited sources indicating that Cyrus the Great is the same as Zul Qarn, so I urge you to revert to the previous edition that deleted Cyrus the Great from Zul Qarnain in English because the sources are credible, now that the sources Valid Please return the name of Cyrus to the English language page. Zulqarnain in connection with Cyrus the Great because you deleted the name of Cyrus the Great from Zulqarnain page because it had no credible source

Azad, Abul Kalam (1990). India's Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Indian Council for Cultural Relations.

Ball, Warwick (2002). Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. Routledge. ISBN 9781134823871.

Berberian, Manuel (2014). Earthquakes and Coseismic Surface Faulting on the Iranian Plateau. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444632975.

Bietenholz, Peter G. (1994). Historia and fabula: myths and legends in historical thought from antiquity to the modern age. Brill. ISBN 978-9004100633.

Cook, David (2005). Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815630586.

Wasserstrom, Steven M. (2014). Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400864133.

Wheeler, Brannon M. (2013). Moses in the Qur'an and Islamic Exegesis. Routledge. ISBN 9781136128905.

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (Tafsir al-Mizan was translated into English by author and renowned Shia preacher Syed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi)

Authentic Persian Resources

پورپیران، عباس (دی ۱۳۸۴)، «نگرشی بر مقدمه کوروش کبیر (ذوالقرنین)»، مجله گزارش (۱۷۰)

یزدان‌پرست، حمید (۱۳۸۶)، ««ذوالقرنین» یا «کوروش» در متون مذهبی (۲)»، مجله گزارش (۲۴۳ و ۲۴۴)

ذوالقرنین یا کوروش در متون اسلامی، مجله دریای پارس

کوروش کبیر یا ذوالقرنین، ابوالکلام آزاد ترجمه و مقدمه: دکتر محمدابراهیم باستانی پاریزی، نشر کورش، تهران ۱۳۷۵

Authentic Arabic sources

کتاب شناخت: کوروش کبیر، نوشته نویسنده عرب صابر صالح زغلول کورش الأکبر «مؤسس الدولة الفارسیة وأبو إیران؛ حیاته و فتوحاته وهل هو ذوالقرنین»

الاسرائیلیات و الموضوعات فی کتب التفاسیر قدیما و حدیثا تألیف سید یوسف محمود ابو عزیز، ص: ۲۵۶ حدیث نبوی کوروس ملک فارس Reza235 (talk)

using proxy

Hello Mr. Doug Weller, Wikipedia is being frequently blocked by my internet provider for some reason so I might be using a proxy, is that okay? thanks. Note:currently I am using a proxy.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: you need to read Wikipedia:Open proxies and if you do get blocked, Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Thanks!. Thank God, I am not blocked!.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Mahabharata Wiki Page Edits

Hello Doug, This is related to the Mahabharata Wiki page edits. You have reverted my changes citing academic sources need to be included since neither Sanskrit nor blog link I provided is sufficient. I would like to ask what qualifies as academic sources.

The information provided in that Wiki page right now is partisan/outdated. It needs to be corrected. However, going by Wiki policies, it cannot be done. I can provide a link to an article named "Interpolations in the Mahabharata" here https://archive.org/stream/InterpolationsInTheMahabharata/INTERPOLATIONS%20In%20The%20Mahabharata_djvu.txt

It is a paper by Indologist M.A. Mehendale and part of the journal "Annals of BORI" from Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and has discussed about this incident. You can see Draupadi's Swayamvar if you scroll down. Please clarify if this source is sufficiently academic.

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

@Doug Weller:

My apologies for being a bugger, but this is to let you know that I have edited back the Synopsis in Mahabharata page. As per Wiki policies, I have added an academic source which has been confirmed by Utcursch in User talk:Utcursch as an acceptable source. I have posted the same in Talk:Mahabharata.

This is only to make sure there is no further revertion of sourced info.

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC))

Nazario Collection

Avoid the gratuitous undoing and read the piece: https://lite.elnuevodia.com/noticias/locales/nota/elmisteriodelaspiedras-2527147/

The one that quotes Rollston -the “epigraphist”- on “generic symbols” is Rodríguez, not the journalist. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Valid sources indicate that Cyrus is the same as Zul Qarn

I have made a promise and cited sources indicating that Cyrus the Great is the same as Zul Qarn, so I urge you to revert to the previous edition that deleted Cyrus the Great from Zul Qarnain in English because the sources are credible, now that the sources Valid Please return the name of Cyrus to the English language page. Zulqarnain in connection with Cyrus the Great because you deleted the name of Cyrus the Great from Zulqarnain page because it had no credible source

Azad, Abul Kalam (1990). India's Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Indian Council for Cultural Relations.

Ball, Warwick (2002). Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. Routledge. ISBN 9781134823871.

Berberian, Manuel (2014). Earthquakes and Coseismic Surface Faulting on the Iranian Plateau. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444632975.

Bietenholz, Peter G. (1994). Historia and fabula: myths and legends in historical thought from antiquity to the modern age. Brill. ISBN 978-9004100633.

Cook, David (2005). Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815630586.

Wasserstrom, Steven M. (2014). Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400864133.

Wheeler, Brannon M. (2013). Moses in the Qur'an and Islamic Exegesis. Routledge. ISBN 9781136128905.

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (Tafsir al-Mizan was translated into English by author and renowned Shia preacher Syed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi)

Authentic Persian Resources

پورپیران، عباس (دی ۱۳۸۴)، «نگرشی بر مقدمه کوروش کبیر (ذوالقرنین)»، مجله گزارش (۱۷۰)

یزدان‌پرست، حمید (۱۳۸۶)، ««ذوالقرنین» یا «کوروش» در متون مذهبی (۲)»، مجله گزارش (۲۴۳ و ۲۴۴)

ذوالقرنین یا کوروش در متون اسلامی، مجله دریای پارس

کوروش کبیر یا ذوالقرنین، ابوالکلام آزاد ترجمه و مقدمه: دکتر محمدابراهیم باستانی پاریزی، نشر کورش، تهران ۱۳۷۵

Authentic Arabic sources

کتاب شناخت: کوروش کبیر، نوشته نویسنده عرب صابر صالح زغلول کورش الأکبر «مؤسس الدولة الفارسیة وأبو إیران؛ حیاته و فتوحاته وهل هو ذوالقرنین»

الاسرائیلیات و الموضوعات فی کتب التفاسیر قدیما و حدیثا تألیف سید یوسف محمود ابو عزیز، ص: ۲۵۶ حدیث نبوی کوروس ملک فارس Reza235 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Please excuse my oversight.

It was late when I was working on the page in question and I realized later that I had forgotten to state why some of the edits had been placed. As the reasons for all the edits was the same, I figured that someone who was literate could manage to put the inference together on their own.

Sadly, there are lots of people who see "Wiki - Something" and believe that the source material they are reading is accurate. But you and I both know that is not always the case. One of the main rules of wiki writing is that *a neutral point of view* be maintained. The pieces are not supposed to be presented showing only the unfortunate aspects of whatever the situation is, using carefully selected adjectives to slant the content even further until it is transformed into agit-prop, and nothing resembling journalism at all. There are lies of commission and lies of omission. The white sections of the article also have meaning.

I am unfortunately used to reading liberal hyperbole presented in what I feel is a blatant attempt to sway people who do not have the time to adequately keep up with current events (which admitted can at times be overwhelming). I stand against intellectual dishonesty in every form. Things are what they are and hopefully we should have the strength of character to be able to admit and discuss these things in an adult manner without people attempting to unfairly sway anyone. You see, I think that is a form of attempted manipulation, which to me bespeaks of a basic lack of respect for the audience on the part of the author.

I try to treat people the way I would wish to be treated, with respect and therefore, honesty.

You are not an ignorant man; I can easily tell that by the way that you put that page together. On the other hand, there are many mentioned events or statements which bears NO citations or attributions; are simply opinion. I was taught at university that you must balance your sources and attributions, because if you don't, someone is going to notice that most of the citations are from a publication that is a bi-weekly ad sheet [*L.D.-Easily discovered by a few minutes of googling*] and that each source is from an extremely liberal publication such as CNN, HuffPost or NPR. Not only attribution is important, but balanced attribution; this would indicate that perhaps there is real consensus about a matter, not contrived consensus. Any article or paper that was submitted with numerous attributions culled from the editorial of a bi-weekly ad-sheet would be handed back with the admonition to "tighten this up".

Frankly, I was insulted by the histrionic language of the slanted propaganda. I understand how you feel, but you can do better than that.

It is certainly none of your business, but I did not vote for Donald Trump. I felt he was a carnival barker, a game-show host and nobody who belonged in the Oval Office.

Glad you liked OpenSecrets as a source. But referring back to the page in question, I don't see it cited anywhere.

I don't doubt your enthusiasm. Best of luck in your future endeavors. - L.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Donner (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzie Donner: hi. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about my part in the article. I've made just 4 edits including last night's, 3.31% of the edits made to the page. You can see them here. The page has had 50 editors and you are now the top editor in turns of number of edits, not that that means a lot on such an infrequently edited page. You will find Opensecrets if you look. The citations seem pretty spread out to me, I can't find the bi-weekly ad sheet. Nor do I agree that the publications you mention are "extremely liberal", in fact I don't even know what that means but I do know that they have passed various discussions at WP:RSN. But every source is spelled out in detail. But my page isn't the best place for this discussion as I didn't write the article - my main contribution was to add a source, the Washington Post - I didn't even add any text. So if you wish to continue this, please use the talk page. You can always notify me, see WP:NOTIFICATIONS. And don't forget to sign with 4 tildes, ie ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 19:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know! Thanks, Doug. Lizzie Donner (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A

Hi. I think the article lead in Alexander the Great in the Quran needs to be worded a bit different. In the Cyrus the Great in the Quran article, the first sentence says: ‘’Cyrus the Great in the Quran is a theory that identifies Dhul-Qarnayn as Cyrus the Great’’ (even though this is supported by many Muslim scholars and commentators). I think the same should be done with the Alexander in the Quran article and it needs to be worded differently, because the article makes it seem that the theory that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great is supported by all the scholars, which is not true.

Thanks. 77.16.61.253 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page for this. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi Doug,

I would like to resolve a current dispute with you, concerning your comments to me to my user page (re: my comment to Haukur about his apparent dishonesty on the Rig Veda talk page. Although it is in my nature to be blunt and direct, I'll try to soften my language and explain the issue from my perpective.

My first addition to the Rig Veda article about Muller was deleted by Haukar on the basis that it did not cite a source directly. I took this in good faith, revised the contribution to include a citation, and explained my reasoning for it on the Rig Veda Talk Page (i.e. concerns with the reliability of Muller's translation). The revised contribution was deleted anyway and Haukur ignored my reasoning to instead re-frame the issue to be more ambiguous, accuse me of cherry picking, and take issue with the use of a primary source, despite this contradicting what the article on primary sources, itself states:

"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable".

This is why I stated I believed Haukur was being dishonest.

However, I was then contacted by you, accusing me of making a "personal attack". I do not believe pointing out apparent dishonesty is a personal attack. I get the impression you have been quite hostile towards me, and seemingly have no problem with other editors on the talk page being hostile either, including accusations of 'cherry picking', 'having an axe to grind', false claims about using primary sources and using blogs, and being told they don't have to explain their edits while I can be expect my content to 'be reverted for multiple reasons at multiple times'. I would say that deters people from contributing (including your apparent favouritism) rather than raising valid issues about the integrity of translations or other editors' reasons for removing content. Carlduff (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carlduff: I'm not getting involved in the argument. If you think you have a source and others tell you it fails our criteria you can ask at WP:RSN. But I should point out that User:Haukur, an editor I don't think I know, not only has over 26,000 edits and thus a lot more experience than you do, but also has been shown to have the trust of the community by becoming a WP:Administrator. WP:Civility is basic policy and is necessary if people are going to work together, and stating that an editor is dishonest is hardly conducive to discussion. And saying that someone is cherry-picking is a far cry from saying they are dishonest in my book. And I just now, after typing that last sentence, noticed that you are doubling down on the dishonesty claim. You are not going to get people willing to listen to you that way. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Oops, should have previewed, that should be User:Haukurth, the th doesn't show unless I hover. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You got involved when you chastised me on my talk page. An individual's edits or apparent 'trust of the community' (which is a meaningless statement) are irrelevant. Despite your edits and trust of the community, you seem to believe continuing to ignore my explanations and offers of resolution is the best course of action (and despite your claims on your talk page about being reasonable). Feelings are not facts, and I believe you are allowing your emotions and bias to override your reason. Reasonable - and honest - people consider the evidence, not their personal feelings. Again, I don't want to argue, I want to resolve this with you. Carlduff (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Another editor (Joshua) has explained my changes could result in causing trouble (e.g. anti-western elements), which I understand and accept. Would've been helpful if someone just said that in the first place, or if perhaps someone with authority had handled the situation better. Obviously others are a bit more relaxed about what constitutes a "discussion" or "resolution" (or honesty), but I will make it a point to remember that in future. No longer a dispute, although I stand by my comments. Carlduff (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:67.226.223.183

Hi, Doug - could you please put a shot across the bows of User:67.226.223.183? Despite numeous warnings, the account has been devoted to nothing but vandalism. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sweetpool50, please report to WP:AIV. Doug and other admins nap occasionally; AIV never sleeps. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thx for the tip. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I went to AIV to take a look, saw you'd filed in incorrectly, fixed that and when I finished editing discovered that a script I used showed the IP blocked! Doug Weller talk 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I deactivate an old user name?

Doug I mixed the password for my old username PiCo and want to use this new one. How can I avoid having dual accounts? (I cannot access PiCo any more, but I doubt that my word is enough). Achar Sva (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: just follow WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Doug Weller talk 06:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Evangelical Theological Society

See the source I added, and the comments on my edit. 162.208.44.53 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Sir, another IP from Karnataka state tried to include the same thing here, with a similar misleading edit summary. Isn't it necessary to PP the article? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: the range is being disruptive in other articles. User:Drmies, I blocked it. Do you think that was the right thing to do? ¬¬¬¬

Northumberland College

Yeah and the college does have Maths and English rooms so that's a fact. Stop vandalising removing other Wikipedia edits without proper reason. Count this as your first warning. SeanWilsonUK (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Honor Harrington

I understand why you removed this. At the same time, this is very interesting material. Perhaps you can find a source for some of it, at least for the general idea, that David Weber, who is a history-buff, based some of his personages and battles on historical people and battles. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: the article is gone now. But I'll give it a whirl. I hope there's going to be another Honor book! Doug Weller talk 17:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but just like its content was merged, so this can be merged, if it would be sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire

I am not sure the COI tag is necessary. From what I have seen all of their contributions have been reverted on sight there. Also the message you left on their talk page could be construed as a legal threat.[56] I know it's not and all that but something to watch out for. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: on that page, yes, but I don't think on all the BLPs. Do you doubt that I'm right about the COI. How is a note about blocking anything like a legal threat- is there something about the wording you think I should change? Doug Weller talk 20:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have almost no double on the COI but not 100%. On the legal thing when you say this is a legal requirement it can come off as you will do something legally if they do not comply. I didn't even see it as a block warning. Again I want to be clear I do not think you were making a legal threat. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@PsckMecEng: I never thought you did. I was confusing WP:COI and WP:PAID. What do you think of my new wording? I dint actually think he's trying to conceal who he is, by the way. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks perfect! Sorry about all this. PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: don't be, you helped me improve my warning and made me remind my self about the difference between the COI page and PAID. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

SPLC reference from the White House seems Wikipedia worthy...?

I edit rarely, but I was surprised at the intensity of the language from a White House spokesperson regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center. It seemed to fit in the "controversies" section. Obviously, someone (you?) disagreed. It is factual, demonstrates an interpretation of the the activities of the SPLC, and is referenced. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I was curious why it was bounced. Utahfolk (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doug didn't revert you. I have asked a question regarding this at the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 20:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation account

While I have no intention of using this account (I was merely curious about whether it could be created) you might want to block it anyway
Doug WeIIer (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Bloc

Hi Doug,

Yesterday while scrolling through wikipedia, going from one page to another, I eventually landed on the page "Black Bloc". After reading it in full I noticed a number of both historical and recent events that have used this tactic or something similar were missing.

I did not change anything of the main body, only adding a few lines regarding the use/rise of Black Bloc tactics during the 2016 US elections by the group Antifa which Wikipedia defines as a left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist group that engages in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. I left links to various pages found on Wikipedia that confirmed what I was saying was correct and unbiased yet it has still been removed and I would like to explore the min reasons for this.

It's worth noting that under the Antifa page, Black Bloc is mentioned as a tactic deployed by the group it would make sense to list them under previous groups that have used them such as the 1999 Seattle WTO protests.

One of the key details here though was I included the fact that in the US they have been classified as a Domestic Terrorist by many after the FBI and DHS reported in 2017 that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.

I'm quite perplexed as to why details which are common knowledge and broadcast globally, is not being conjoined on the worlds largest resource database. Considering that the Antifa landing page lists Black Bloc as a tactic used, one would think that this would also be noted on the Black Bloc page.

The only reason I can see as to why the edit may have been removed was to draw attention to similarities between Black Bloc and the associated groups who utilize the tactic (such as Antifa) and the Sturmabteilung during the 1920s - 1930s who used Brown shirts due to their uniform colour.

I understand this is a hot topic for many US citizens especially, however is the sake of truthfulness. Things that happened at such a large scale should be recorded correctly, regardless of how ugly the topic may be.

I would very much like to find a resolution to this, so if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and have a great day — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryisKey1992 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug told you why your edit was removed in his edit summary, to quote " Unsourced, non-neutral, not a minor edit, etc". See our policies on reliable sourcing, citations, and neutral point of view. Heiro 05:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

R2a article

Sir, is it OK to write extra content based on Supplementary Material like this excel sheet? Isn't it WP:PRIMARY? The Main publication PDF text doesn't establish a relation between Haplogroup R2 and Ganj Dareh. It only has a table that lists the number of R2a samples per region (Iran/Turan and South Asia). Link here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes

It would seem as though my contribution to the Nick Fuentes page has been repeatedly vandalized or otherwise removed by bad faith actors, one of whom has baselessly accused me of being a White Supremacist. The previous version to which they are reverting is poorly written and nothing is properly formatted. They have not given proper reasons for this reversion and made no attempt to correct the higher quality, corrected rendition. There is reason to believe they do not wish to reach an editorial consensus, but rather are doing this out of personal bias. That said I dont wish to break the rules in any capacity, and would appreciate any mediation you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottretteunsalle (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Scholar

I am perplexed about your recent revert of my edit adding a link to Craig Loehle's Google Scholar profile to his article on the basis of WP:ELNO. I have added GS profiles of academics to articles about them countless times in the past and have never been challenged on it before this, and it seems questionable at best to argue that a Google Scholar profile listing publications by a person qualifies as a list of "search results", such as you would find if you Googled a term. Therefore, I disagree with your claim that the inclusion of a GS profile in the external links section of an article, such as you can find in many of the articles on which the corresponding template is transcluded, violates WP:ELNO. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: I'm not going to argue about this, restore it if you think best. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the response. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dox_threat Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Honorverse deletion

FYI, the revision of you deleted of Honorverse was fine. The offensive material was the user's name, which is still visible.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dan Bloch: I fixed that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by anonynomus IP

This anonymous IP, 196.234.237.214, keeps vandalizing pages related to the Jewish and Christian population in Arab and Eastern countries. Can we please report him?--GenoV84 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@GenoV84: if they'd been warned I'd have blocked them. Their edit summaries look like a good faith but incompetent attempt to edit. I'll block them if I see them continue.Doug Weller talk 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you very much.--GenoV84 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemanth

Hi Doug Weller, you deleted Hemanth (disambiguation) as an unnecessary disambiguation page, but Hemanth has now been created, so it is appropriate to have a redirect page. Do you have any objections to my re-creating Hemanth (disambiguation)? Leschnei (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC) @Leschnei: Hemanth is already a disambiguation page. How would people find Hemanth (disambiguation)? Doug Weller talk 15:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Intentional links to disambiguation pages are indicated by using the version of the title that includes the text '(disambiguation)'; this distinguishes the link from the many mistaken links to disambiguation pages. It's a big help to editors who try to clean up the mistaken links - they don't waste their time re-visiting the intentional ones. If the disambiguation title doesn't include '(disambiguation)', then a redirect is created. There are 100's (1000's?) of redirects whose only purpose is to indicate an intentional link to a disambiguation page. A better explanation than mine is here. Leschnei (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Restored. There is no point in arguing over this. WP:INTDABLINK makes it clear that it should exist. BD2412 T 19:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412 and Leschnei: I never had any intention of arguing over this, this is simply an area where I don't know all the details. I apologise for taking up the time of both of you but I've learned something new. There's always more to learn on Wikipedia even without reading its articles! Doug Weller talk 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. BD2412 T 19:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, Leschnei (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Epoch times

Please do not post trivial messages on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your cooperation Holon (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Holon: It wasn't trivial. If you lose an argument on the main page of a subject you shouldn't try to win it somewhere else where the subject is mentioned. Particularly in an area with discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 05:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you for thanking me!

I didn't think I would ever receive any attention from an oversight, let alone my first week! Thanks! N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 11:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, did I break the 1rr here? I made a bold edit here and I got reverted by an editor who only revereted me because "long standing" material so I revert here and he went and reported me for 1rr. I made one revert and the 1rr says more than one revert.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that good faith articulated contributions have been arbitrarily reverted without counterevidence or logical substantial justification

I logged in with the intention of donating again, and I noticed the following which is disappointing considering that I'm Wikipedia member for as long as you seem to be and I have been contributing both in content sporadically and money donation to wikipedia.

I understand your administrative complain on using the minor checkbox but that's what I truly though they were; I did previous similar contributions and used it without anybody complaining. I accept that criticism and won't use it anymore and I don't have any problem in fact I welcome and consider the peer review necessary. But after that's what happened because I have made some related on sentence/paragraph changes to some related pages and all have been reverted without counter-evidence or justified objections because all of them were logical coherent common-sense statements. So I'd accept reformulation for syntax grammar improvement but I think the arbitrary reversal (i.e. deletion) of statement crossreferenced in Wikipedia and with several external references provided, is abusive just on authoritarian basis. This is even harder to justify considering there are many Wikipedia articles with statements or claims not backed by any evidence and published for long time without anyone reversing anything. t's supported by archaeological findings, so one wants to add that is disputed that maybe acceptable but not outright removal of something that I have added as clarification. I can also provide more references but what is the guarantee that your gurus won't just arbitrarily say this is not mainstream? It's not mainstream topic to begin with so most of sources are specialised and not mainstream anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epvo (talk • contribs)

@Epvo: I'm Wikipedia member for as long as you seem to be -- How long ago you registered your account doesn't matter, especially when one editor has only a few dozen edits experience and another thousands of times more.

So I'd accept reformulation for syntax grammar improvement but I think the arbitrary reversal (i.e. deletion) of statement crossreferenced in Wikipedia and with several external references provided, is abusive just on authoritarian basis. -- See WP:OWN, which any experienced editor is familiar with.

This is even harder to justify considering there are many Wikipedia articles with statements or claims not backed by any evidence and published for long time without anyone reversing anything. -- Please show them to us so we can reverse them. Mistakes elsewhere do not justify new mistakes. Any experienced editor knows this.

t's supported by archaeological findings, -- Wikipedia is based on professionally-published mainstream academic sources, not your interpretation of archaeological findings.

I can also provide more references -- That's exactly what Doug asked you to do.

what is the guarantee that your gurus won't just arbitrarily say this is not mainstream -- You could leave a post at Talk:Tărtăria_tablets asking if the new sources you found are reliable. We also have guidelines for determining the reliability of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla civility issues

Doug, a while back you intervened in a civility matter involving @Soibangla:. In that case I requested the editor strike a talk page comment directed at me that was a violation of CIVIL [[57]]. I've had almost no interaction with the editor since. However, today the civility problems are back. [[58]], [[59]]. Would you please help mediate this dispute? I would rather not take this to ANI but it's clear this editor is happy to attack editors rather than FOC/focusing on the discussion. Springee (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: I simply don't have the time until possibly tomorrow afternoon, and I think ANI is a better place anyway. Sorry. Let me know if you take it to ANI please. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug, thanks, I understand. I will give @Soibangla: until tomorrow to remove the quote. If not, I will review my previous interactions with the editor as well as comments directed at others and put an ANI case together. Springee (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I struck the comment. I'd like to call attention to an edit in this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive312#Rooting_For_Team_Red,_Rooting_For_Team_Blue,_And_Rooting_For_Individual_Players_On_Team_Blue

which Springee chose to inappropriately post on an admin noticeboard rather than on my Talk page. Why would s/he choose to do that? In the edit, Springee asserts that two edits I made were somehow problematic, but they were not: Republicans "most notably" do attribute mass shootings to video games, and studies find little support for it, and Scott Walker did promote increased milk production which resulted in a supply glut and depressed prices. The fact the edits happen to involve Republicans does not demonstrate bias, it just happens to be facts about their positions/actions, albeit facts some might not like. Also in the edit, Springee tells me it "isn't something to be proud of" that a troll on r/The_Donald made several false representations of my WP edits. I disagree, it is something to be proud of when a hyperpartisan liar on r/The_Donald calls me a liar, and for Springee to suggest otherwise is not civil, certainly not in an admin noticeboard venue, and might cause a reasonable person to wonder about his/her motives. Finally, on my Tucker Carlson edit today, I used reFill to complete the refs, and reFill evidently didn't meet Springee's expectations, so s/he decided to make an issue of it with me, which elicited my comment that I don't think s/he likes me very much. I will have nothing more to say about this matter. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Since @Soibangla:'s comments were not part of any other editor's comments and unrelated to the rest of the discussion I removed the stuck comment. With respect to the citations, clearly reFill isn't doing the job since the typical citation has only a hotlink and a date. It lacks fields for author, publication, date added, etc. I normally use the older text editor which has a citation template tool that works well. I would suggest taking a look. Anyway, absent some other issue I consider this matter closed. Springee (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about the notice you placed

Hi, I'm just wondering why you placed the Discretionary Sanctions Notice on my talk page and not on Snooganssnoogans' page as well? Have I done anything that is not within policy? Thank you for the clarification. UberVegan🌾 23:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm equally perplexed as to why you didn't give the same warning to SharabSalam who seems to be edit-warring, especially since his edit had been reverted and there is a talk discussion occurring. UberVegan🌾 00:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

​

"seems to be editwarring"

I have literally made one revert. your "talk discussion" is a waste of time because all of your talking points are your opinions. No one is going to waste time reading your opinions about how reliable sources are "extermly biased". If you have any objective argument say it in the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

All talk discussions are opinons... an opinion that this is WP:VANDALISM, or that this editor is WP:EDITWARRING, or they are WP:CIVIL. I believe there's enough substance based on policies that it should be a discussion and not have you unilaterally revert when a thread has been started. If every editor acted as you, Wikipedia would become a battleground. Oh, wait... UberVegan🌾 18:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

UberVegan, your opinion about solid reliable sources being "extremely biased" is a waste of time. If you want to discuss the reliability of for example of VOX which is considered generally reliable source you can go to WP:RSN not in the article. Currently, almost all reliable sources agree that Gatestone institute is a "far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop". --SharabSalam (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, anyone can alert anyone. I think I have been notified about the discretionary sanctions before so there is no need for a new notification.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the notice. It states: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It is simply a notification that certain articles are controversial and have stricter enforcement of guidelines. You can only get one of these notices a year for any particular area. I posted one on SharabSalam'a page last month. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I just found it odd that I received a notice but not Snooganssnoogans, as far as I could see. UberVegan🌾 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@UberVegan: policy forbids giving alerts more than once a year. Also see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. I'd have broken policy, policy I helped set as a member of the Arbitration Committee, if I'd given either editor an alert. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Thank you, Doug, for clarifying! UberVegan🌾 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

UberVegan,

Very odd that you only got it now. I have said I have been notified about the discretionary sanctions before so there is no need for a new notification. and Objective3000 have said You can only get one of these notices a year for any particular area. I posted one on SharabSalam'a page last month. This just shows that you skip reading our comments. Another reason why I said waste of time.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I was speaking to Doug's comment about helping to set the policy on ARBCOM. This just shows that you lack understanding. I won't respond to any more of your drivle. UberVegan🌾 21:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines and avoid characterizations like drivel. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested in this[60], Doug? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

User adding fringe material

Hi Doug,

User Kapeter77 has been adding material to pages about Hungarian history from a theory that Hungarian Wikipedia describes thusly:

The Arvisuras are the eponymous name of an eclectic [1] [2] myth system recorded by the metallurgist Zoltán Paál and the beliefs contained within it. According to Paul, the work, whose content came partly through the narration of Soviet paratroopers Salalar Tura [3] and through the "thought-vibration process" [4], covers the thousands of years of history and worldview of the Hun-Hungarian tribes. Its credibility is disputed.

I've already tried to talk to him about it [61], [62], but to no avail. Would you be able to do something about it? Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: sorry, too late, they're indefinitely blocked! Doug Weller talk 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway Doug!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)