![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
what the (TW) means in your edit on my talk page. It shows up when I view the history of edits.-Dirtclustit (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
More vandalism by the user you warned. Sorry for the weird link, I'm supposed to be on break. It seems I can't step away without another starship9000 sock declaring themselves to me or some vandal attacking my page. Thanks, GABHello! 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller,
I had attempted to edit this page and it was reversed. I don't really know what I'm doing here and was hoping to get your help and explanation.174.30.112.164 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Lawrence C. Valin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
And best wishes to you and yours, User:Johnbod. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Best wishes to you and yours also, User:Ealdgyth, but I think troll-free is too optimistic. Productive, that I think might happen. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikiclaus greetings | |
|
Hope you don't mind. Debouch (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends! | |
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
@User:Mark Miller and to you and yours also. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! |
Ferakp (talk · contribs) made major changes on the article of Genetic history of the Turkish people. The article is about ethnic Turks and that's the reason why commentators mentioned about "assimilation" and compared them other Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Please do something about this POV. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is not about ethnic Turks, read the sources. They all mention that their studies are related to Turkish population, not the ethnic Turks. I mentioned that in talk page and talked about it in help chatroom of Wikipedia. Content is same except there was a lot of false information, links and picture that violated copyrights. Please, explain why you are against my changes. Ferakp (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hope you had a great Christmas! Quick question...obviously i am new to this. If there is a page, I think you know the one, that has no real references (though I did attempt to add some) and is clearly biased (though I tried to kind of balance it) can I create a new page with updated photos and a more neutral article with references that actually allows the reader to make up their own mind on the subject like it should be done? If so, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistory2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Khentkaus IV about it. I can copy the content to your userspace if you like. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot please do. R.azz.miligi (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
We have completely revised the Walter Russell article that stood for 9 years. It needs to be reviewed, and the old article generated some pretty hateful comments on the Talk page that needs to be deleted. Also the Chazhardy Talk page. Can you do these things? Chazhardy (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings !!!! | |
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! And some drinks! Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
it makes you look like a fool. The Raymond capt book you never read, then there was the atlantis by castledon. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Douglas_Weller#Pseudo-skepticJonathanJoshy (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This source:
is used quite liberally throughout the Philip II of France article. Should it be considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
((cite book))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). At least it'd be a good starting point. I'm not conversant enough with the available sources to say what a good biography of Phillip Augustus would be. Hallam and Everard recommend the Baldwin work Government of Philip Augustus and a biography by J. Bradbury Philip Augustus, King of France 1180-1223 published in 1998. They also mention a couple of French sources for his reign, but my French is non-existent so I'll let someone else copy those over here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Though I am in his/her debt for reminding me to just a drop a note your way, Doug, to wish you, and yours, the very best for the incoming New Year. Have a good one. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
...a very happy New Year in advance, Doug. Take care, and have a great one. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding ((subst:New Year 1)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
peace bell |
---|
Thanks for your support in 2015, - ring the peace bell often! - Look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! Love the latter especially, great to begin the new year with Verdi's wisdom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
![]() (Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
Doug, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
((subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear)) to user talk pages. |
![]() (Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)
|
Thanks for disposing of 125.24.72.6. Just before 125.24.72.6 became active, a suspicious new user Dan Capoccia restored[2] WorldCreaterFighter's[3] edits at Ainu people. Could be another sock. Krakkos (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I used to identify myself as a witch (which)... simply to state that I look everywhere for answers. Not anymore since even that is misrepresented now with falsewitness (some people decided to set up a heirarchy system to desolve the original term.
"Adversarial Wiseman" is true to date which conditionally is only the case until a counter meaning has been attempted to linearise my meaning. I'm dynamic and not static. I move. I'm like the moon, sometimes you can see me (identify) sometimes not due to what is around me. Am I free? Sometimes, less than others since when you're wiser you restrain yourself from acting foolish or childish.
If everyone was like me then there would be no reason to push terms on each other... I'm the solution. (Perhaps fear of the unknown prevents this?)
As it stands for freeman, like I said, if you can't reasonably rebute their arguments (calling them insane)... I think they may something... failure to address their arguments puts them in the "pending" slot and are innocent until proven guilty.
Their adversaries... (People whom work in law per-say)... if they demand that freemen should debunk all arguments made against the premises of freemen against the law... then the vise-versa should be applied morally (as of natural law)... In other words, it's down to people who work in law to rebute all arguments freemen make... however, if law-workers move the goal-post then the freemen are at an equal still. Who looks to be in the wrong? (without asserting freeman is in the right since right and wrong are not being decided by nature here) Probably the people working in Law since they're not being naturally moral as they are the firt to change the rules causing freemen trouble.
Psychology perhaps suggests that many law-workers do not wish for their views to be challenged with regards their behaviour. Freemen compare them to a cult... I can see the resemblence, that's just my analyse though purporting them to scientology. If a cult-like movement have a big say in the media (in writing articles against freemen) where freemen don't... there's no reason for me to fabricate against this on wikipedia, it's self-evident and nothing would be achieved but I think it's right to add where possible that will give some representation if it follows the rules (people already have their opinion on these so it's no bother to me, Wikipedia has a most known reputation for false information, which has drifted to censoreship and libel, that's just the case so there is no gain).
People are going to judge you no matter what you may suggest to be... so this topic has been pretty useless. Hopefully, with regards to your prejudgements made against me (which is synonymous with "prejudice"... look at the words) and that I have stated on terms of being "guilty until proven innocent"... you'll accept that based on me stating that I have no interest in breaking the rules you'll give me some space. Slander is to avoid true topic of debate. If you want a real debate, I can gladly have one but I insist that you obide logical fallicies (rather they be arstotle based... I know of 1 logical fallacy on here that isn't really one but a clever sophisticate way to dismiss anothers argument if it precepts a relation to etymology <truest meaning as there are no misinterpretations or straw-manning>... it was made in 1994 I believe so sums up the possibility of error), room for human error, and lastly to not dismiss the principle that "natural categories" posit first before any details (natural or unnatural).
But if we're having an argument and say, you're a nihilist (someone who rejects the nature of value or analogies), there isn't much point in any discussion. Debunked in 2 steps...
Nihilist Claim; "Nothing is true = true" ->
(but if there is no truth then how can that be true?) ->
Therefore; "Nothing is true ≠ true".
Naturalist Claim; "Comparitablity is true = true" ->
(See nihilist argument, and this argument... a comparison is currently being made between the two as 1 example.)
Comparitablity = True.
Latestly however; counter to freeman arguments... I do not necessarily believe common law is the law of the land (this doesn't mean I do not condone crimes such as rape, murder or torture as you conditionally might if it was passed in statute (which I am unsure as you haven't stated a position on the matter)... Chapter III of the bill of rights (UK) only specifies that charters, grants and pardons must not be to no effect (<provided that this is the case is what it formally says>, providence also means "under protection by god", this is likely connected to the first commandment that you're breaking the firt commandment by changing the constitution)... these were all mostly written by kings and lords... So I just interpret from the coronation oath as a "verbal grant" that is above all else... that if you take action you have to be moral (mostly from 10 commandments) or have no authority at all. - If we have to find right and wrong... leave it to philosophy and history (for arguments.) The reason why that lawyer was annoyed at me was because I pretty much suggested that he wasted his time reading black's dictionary... some people don't react well to bad news and if everyone manned up admitting they don't fully know the law... including that lawyer... he for instance would be a qualfied lawyer since he'd have first hand experience of fraud.
I think that's about it. Eventually, freemen will be heard, there will be arguments between governments and freemen... and above will be the final result... I am sure of this and 95% of the time I am right with these predictions. Just wait till it blows over lol.
Anonymous 573462i (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Insane is my speculation as of a judge giving freemen negative psychological evaluations on the freeman page. Fair enough but you say nothing yet act, certainly this leaves me unsure as I can feel somewhat demanded to explain my actions on here yet you're not too willing to do so yourself (such as in the instance of abstaining of perhaps reversing my ban (or extention of it), whereby I was using my personal equipment on an open-source website (There are too many lawyers governing the fmol page to assure an authoritive postition against freemen rather than a more professial historical format as other pages are doing, see "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" then the top articles in google and you will find that most headlines are aggressive towards catholicism in some manner yet no format as such on the wiki page is made (compare this to fmol and this page rejects the rule altogether). It doesn't seem to set an example from my pov to be too vague despite in principle it assures your personal safety if you do have the advantage of banning, and removing individuals from their talk pages etc from an equitable imperative pov. If you read how I actually formatted the page it was similar to Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home method. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Doug, a cupcake for you for fighting vandalism :-) Poepkop (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:143.176.216.29. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: It is not correct to say that images is not allowed in ethnic group infoboxes. It is image galleries of (presumably) famous persons that has been discussed. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for my recent revert. For some reasons I was confused and thought you had restored the capitalisation in the heading. Afterwriting (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Doug, there an editor, who is being uncivil to another editor at Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I left a civility warning at User talk:Hobbe Yonge, but am uncertain what else to do. Paul H. (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevie Boi. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I stand by all my comments about Welsing but I am not going to edit war. I must admit I did not realize the talk page comment to which I replied was a year old. I never edit that article and the comment in question was the last one on the talk page. It was dated early January so the 2015 escaped my attention (see [4]). Yours, Quis separabit? 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A new editor continues to insert claims into Kensington Runestone which you and I both removed. I've tried to get the user to use talk pages, but that has not been successful. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Who are you to invade and determine on your own what is reliable or not? My PDF is certainly reliable or the MN Historical Society would not have accepted it. You are a threat to my American 1st Amendment rights here on Wiki, and my personal opinion is that you should be kicked off, permanently. I've already been warned about you and your U. K. hidebound approach to the KRS, and I think your close-mindedness is deplorable.
Any thoughts on including it as the latest misappellation? Finding reliable sources is always a pain, especially with David Morrison retired. But it does seem to be making rounds on Before It's News. Serendipodous 14:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the information and tips. Much appreciated. Jp16103 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Levofloxacin. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you have previously commented on the lead of Bat Ye'or. There's now a two-editor dispute surrounding it and your participation would be appreciated. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at the edit-war conducted by IP-editor 107.72.97.155 going on in the Nefertiti article about her origin? ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Authorship of Luke–Acts, user has violated WP:3RR/edit warring and is removing source without attempt to resolve/discuss. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you've followed the conversation at Talk:Akhenaten, but based on the IP editor's latest post (1) and having compared an old message from Ararat arev on my talk page (2), I've realized that the IP editor is Ararat. These are the IP addresses he's used in that conversation: 166.170.45.225, 166.171.123.47, 107.72.96.120, 107.72.96.46, 166.176.59.165, 166.176.59.230, and 107.72.99.42. A. Parrot (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethnocracy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. "Harassment". The "harassment" was pointing out that an editor on the Dan Bilzerian article [redact 3rd attempt to out editor - DW]. Some weird admin claimed it was 'harassment' to point that out, because he needed a pretext reason to issue a ban for feeling 'sassed'. If you're reduced to irrelevant tangents, so be it but it doesn't change the fact that you're 100% wrong on the Solutrean Hypothesis article, regardless of who between us has the more elevated user status. I'll be re-reverting. Feel free to seek mediation. I think at this point the article needs it. LoverOfArt (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Does www.catholic.org/ appear to be a reliable source to you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I published an entry about Ayo Kimathi. I provided (2) paragraphs with direct quotes from the book he wrote stating his opinions and beliefs. Why did you tag my entry and say that it didn't have resource references? I quoted directly from the book and quoted the pages he made these statements on.
I am new at this, so I may have made some errors. But I clearly used direct links to statements made in major media and I specifically sited quotes from his book. What better references are you looking for? And could you be more specific because the paragraphs that you prevented from being added had a number of quotes.
Or is it that you flagged the page before I quoted directly from the books and so the quotes weren't saved?
I need assistance in understanding exactly what I need to do to correct this situation. Again, I am new and may be missing something.
I also need assistance in figuring out how to create the categories so that it's not just me writing Early History, but becomes an actual Wikipedia standard heading.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide Kalydosos (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I have a question about something you wrote at AE: "[W]e've always said that if an article is basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban." I'm wondering whether a word is missing (e.g. "if an article is [not] basically about the subject of the topic ban." SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
So, you arent answer to me in my talk page, if you will not, i will make the change then--Vvven (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw now the talk page. thanks that at least you put there. waiting that some that know something related at this, can give the specific sites, or probe if are fakes, althought by the hidden, in a talk page, will be very difficult that this happens, but thanks again--Vvven (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Doug, I don't know if you've seen this, but there is some talk going on at: [5] which might interest you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Doug, not sure if you noticed the edits of this user. Maybe it's all right but all that pushing of a single article (in all of his edits) sounds quite odd to me. What do you think? Khruner (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I inserted an angle-bracket to complete a strikeout-closing tag in a comment of yours at WT:ACN, because the entire thread beyond that point was displaying in the struck-out style. Please check that I haven‘t misconstrued your intention.—Odysseus1479 07:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Doug. As an occasional wiki-editor, I have made some comments in response to your remarks on the Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology page. Would you care to review them and respond. Cheers, Peter B. (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David Irving". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 February 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
The IP 74.231.191.88 has also edited as 75.65.155.86. This IP hit the same articles on the same dates. The content was different but also appears to have been copied verbatim from LDS.org. These edits were at Book of Mormon.
Thanks! -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Good morning Doug. This diff appears to be a return of the same behavior under an IPv6, direct copying of LDS.org into Book of Mormon. Could you please delete and maybe also semiprot? If there is a better venue I should approach, please let me know. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This account looks like a sockpuppet. Registered on 10 Jul 2015, inactive until 20 Jan 2016. Then did 8 similar edits on his user page (see his/her contributions) to become an autoconfirmed account (26 Jan 2016) and he/she can edit a protected article [8]. --Zyma (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Zyma quite possibly but there's no way to tell whose at the moment. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
why do you support defend and promote hearsay assumptions and opinions that are biased uninformed and falsely based with regards to free men on the land? Do you have facts that discredit my first hand experiences and evidence? Do you commonly defend hearsay unsubstantiated opinion and biased reporting? I am [redacted personally identifiable information] and can prove all of my facts that your opinions offered in that article are not all truth facts and reality and are mostly damage control slander hearsay and indeed easily proven biased opinion174.3.33.47 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Someone needs to keep an eye the Lake Missoula article. User talk:87.146.174.232 is making unsourced changes to it as he or she has done to the Missoula Flood article. He or she seems intent on changing articles, without providing reliable sources, to state that there has been only one Missoula Flood as recently claimed by Graham Hancock and his colleague Randal Carlson. Paul H. (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Howdy! I don't know if this belongs here or not, but here goes. Recently, a number of my edits (episode summaries) have been deleted from said page, for alleged copyright violation. I had restored said edits since they are NOT copyright violation, but my own summary of episodes I watched. Following this, I received two different notices about said edits: one claimed my edits to be "disruptive editing" for restoring edits that contained alleged copyright violations, the second claimed that my edits contained original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Although I hardly consider writing an episode synopsis "original research," I can see now how it could be construed that way.
The point I absolutely need to have come across is that I had received no proper notification or explanation about the unsuitability of my edits until after I had RESTORED them. I understand the monumentous task that it must be to maintain an encyclopedia edited by the general public, but clear communication about the grounds for reverting edits would prevent misunderstanding between editors and their motives and generally increase the quality of the encyclopedia.
I have since found episode summaries from the show's official website: I have copied them over with a link to the original source. Please have a gander and let me know if this is permissible or not. Real tlhingan (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Real_tlhIngan
I apologize for my behavior on the SPLC page. I was in a bit of a bad mood at the time and did not mean to offend. I am sorry for my actions. Gdeblois19 13:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Russell Wilson page turned into a revert/edit war fiasco. Nezi1111 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why this is the case: "I've reverted you as your edits appear to be promotional." Using Theodore Ziolkowski's Gilgamesh Among Us: Modern Encounters With the Ancient Epic (2011) I am looking to improve the entry and provide relevant links where they are not currently given. I am not trying to be "promotional."
Ronanhead (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, considering your recent warning, I thought I'd let you know I've requested another block of this account [10], which seems to have continued in pretty much the same vein. It's possible that more reversions are necessary, but I removed what seemed to be the most obvious commentary. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
you deleted my modification on Jihad Makdissi page and i did provide an Edit summary as requested . i was just trying to update the information , u had a lot of wrong info "rumours" and i used a URL for an interview he gave yesterday ( a lengthy one) to update the info on him. in addition to a recent interview on Arabiya ( it shows his political affiliation , job, political tendency.... everything i provided was verifiable
!!!!
Hallo, Doug Weller, I have recently added sections to the Tintern Abbey article and have had them targeted by Editor Hchc2009, who I believe is taking the OR and Verifiability guidelines too far. I wonder whether you could contact administrators whose speciality these are to comment on the article's talk page and on Hchc2009's, where discussion has commenced. I suspect I may be being victimised, but don't want to approach arbitration if I truly am falling short. Thanks, Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What 'uncivil' comment exactly are you referring to?Zacksfenton (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,
BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times! ,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted a request about semi-protection for the Heritability of IQ article today at about 18:00. It appears that the same IP editor has returned with an account, and is again incorrectly citing publications, and deleting information which more experienced editors of the article have not deemed to require deletion. Would you be so kind as to look into this matter? Or at the least, would you be able to recommend to me what steps I should take to get this issue resolved correctly? Thank you, and please forgive my inappropriate use of your talk page.
Also, would it be possible to assign Victor Chmara with some ability to limit edits; since he seems to be the most neutral and the largest contributor to the article, and will likely be the least biased. If that is possible, and if he will accept it. ScholarBlue talk 21:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Also can I point out to you that Windkin has now reverted my edits 3 times. You should probably warn him of the 3 edit rule.
ScholarBlue talk 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ScholarBlue's disruptive edits were already discussed on the article's talk page last month. Also can I point out to you that ScholarBlue has now reverted my sourced contributions 3 times, as well as deleting my requests for sources for his own unsourced assertions. You should probably warn him of that 3 edit rule. Oh wait he was already aware of it. Funny that. Windkin talk 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windkin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
for your recent action David in DC (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug, I don't know if you have been watching 'PC', (I would well understand it if you hadn't been). PAs, spurious RfCs, arguing in circles and general battleground and IDHT have reached epidemic proportions. this was a recent response to this fairly reasonable attempt at discussion. I appreciate you are partially involved, but is there any option open to us other than ANI? Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) … … …ps please ping if replying
He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides.
![]() |
Happy Diwali!!! | |
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
|
Hi Doug. Its been a long time! Something caught my eye. In the article Ottoman Bulgaria, the opening paragraph has the statement:
"The Ottoman rule was a period marked by oppression and misgovernment and represents a deviation of Bulgaria's development as a Christian European state".
I'm just wondering whether its slightly biased or whether its ok as it is? I've had a look at the sources cited and whilst they does suggest misgovernment (I'd suggest more neutral sources, but there you go), the phrase "marked by oppression" doesn't seem to fit into the tone of wikipedia. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks GiggsIsLegend (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
See, its not me who is edit warring. I made a correction, and commented in Talk. Then another editor reverted. I again invited to discuss in talk. And he reverted again. Now, third time I again discussed, but he again ignored. And commenting each revert he said I promote David Irving's own views, whereas my correction was related to quoting from his book, to quote correctly, i.e. restore what he DID say and editing out what he did not. When we retell what is said in the book, we must quote correctly. Irving said this (what I put there, this is my small edit, article is large and the edit is a minor one) and he says that this is promoting the views that should not be promoted. Why misquote. Is that collective journalism? I mean, the consensus of it, I mean we all don't support Hitler and many accused Irving in supporting that man, so what the consensus would be? Is it OK to misquote? No one could correct? Consensus people own this one piece of writing? I mean, this reads like say Golda Meir and perhaps some others, all of them 'Jews' by some remote control 'controls'... Hungary, a whole state, that is how it is in the text, and that is 'supposedly', Irving says so, a conspiracy. But Irving did not say in the book that is quoted, nothing of this. And due to that what he DID say are his 'views' (he a historian, must have some view on history) we misquote and attribute to his what he did NOT say. And to change that is an offence. And no debate.
Could you advise, how we do arbitrate this?
It seems to me that the warring party refuses to explain self in Talk, shutting mouth with wiki procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the "Noah's Ark" page; I made a change which you have commented on where I explained my reasons for the edit namely a broad statement had been made with no citation and strongly suspect NPOV which did not give credit to the wide debate on the subject. This was rapidly removed without explanation. I made additional change (without removing any text) providing balance to a statement which I believe breached NOPV rules. I backed this up with citations and careful reference to other internal (Wikipedia pages) and one external via a link to a source in the public domain and freely available. I have then been accused of initiating an "edit war". I would be grateful if you could explain on what grounds I have broken Wikipedia laws? With kind thanks 81.158.48.173 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Edward
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. Last night, as I sat and read this page, I immediately began to edit many NON-REFERENCED bits of information. I have tried to edit this page in the past and many others pertaining to the Moors (see the Almoravids thread to this same editor/overseer). I would post [citation needed] and would give reasons why a citation was needed. For instance, Noble Drew Ali NEVER referenced himself as Timothy Drew, he referenced himself as Noble Drew Ali. Not only did he and the membership reference him by this name, the public and the media also referenced him by this name. Proof can be shown in the following newspaper article along with MANY others and yet, this Wikipedia article constantly refers to him as "Timothy Drew" and "Drew." This was not the case when this page was first established. Someone was allowed to come onto this page and edit and now, no one can change it. I find that quite odd.
The use of the name is inconsistent in the article. In some portions he is referenced as Timothy Drew. In others, he is referenced as Drew, and yet still, he is referenced as Noble Drew Ali. There are things within the article that have absolutely NO merit and cannot be found in the organizations religious text or literature. I will list just a few of them here:
This can be found nowhere in the religious texts of the M.S.T of A. Please cite your citation.
This is not guess work or belief, this is from the man himself and his birthday celebrations were reported in the Chicago Defender which can be evinced below:
Poor scholastic methodology was used in this article. Let us continue...
Who did "Drew" report this to? This can be found NOWHERE in the teachings, literature or oral sayings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali which can be read here
This view was obviously inserted by one who holds OBJECTIVE VIEWS to the prophethood of Noble Drew Ali who stated in the M.S.T. of A's religious text that "The fallen sons and daughters of the Asiatic Nation of North America need to learn to love instead of hate; and to know their higher self and lower self. This is the uniting of the Holy Koran of Mecca, for teaching and instructing all Moorish Americans, etc." The full text can be read here.
In this, Noble Drew Ali claimed to UNITE the text as oppose to replace it as this wikipedia article suggests. What this also suggest is that Noble Drew Ali did not bring any Islamic teachings and this too is blatantly false.
More poorly stated research with absolutely no citations to back it up. The Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America was compiled using these direct sources:
Again, this wiki article is poorly sourced and offensive to members of the organization.
Anointed by who? Citation needed and yet, my edit for a citation needed was removed by this editor. It seems completely bias and it appears as if this article is trying to shed a false light on the organization and its founder by letting anyone come and make non-sourced claims, and not taking into consideration other sources which counter the claims of the books cited in the article.
This is an absolute, and blatant lie and obviously said by an opponent to the organization. No citation was given and yet, this was allowed to be posted on this cite by apparent opponents of the organization. This is false light and slander as Prophet Noble Drew Ali urged members not to eat any meat accept fish. Prophet Noble Drew Ali expressly FORBADE the drinking of alcohol. If such is not changed within this article, we will in fact begin the process of suing wikipedia for allowing these types of statements to stand unchallenged with absolutely no proofs to back them up.
"Drew believed that African Americans were all Moors who he claimed descended from the ancient Moabites (describing them as belonging to Northwest Africa as opposed to Moab as the name suggests)"
Prophet Noble Drew Ali's exact words were "The Moorish Americans are descendants of the ancient Moabites whom inhabited the Northwestern and Southwestern shores of Africa." (Act 6 of the organization's bylaws). He taught that the Moorish people, falsely called "black" people, TRAVELED FROM the ancient land of Canaan and INHABITED West Africa (Ch. 47 v. 6). You can read the full text here. The wording of this article makes it appear as if Noble Drew Ali made up this claim as if people have not migrated since the beginning of recorded history. Not only have peoples migrated, the places they settle, are usually named after the people themselves like the name Mauritania.
I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller, Thank you for guiding me. I really appreciate it. 'Zamzam well and potential health risks' description mentions the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water rather than Zamzam water. It also points out the scientific research which denies the health risks of Zamzam water. So I think the title is misleading. The title should be something like 'Packaged Zamzam water and potential health risks' as the description talks about the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water and about the scientific researches that disprove the potential health risks of Zamzam water. Thank You.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shathir Puthalath (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug! Thoughts welcome there. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Doug thanks for your previous feedback , i knew now why you removed my correction to the page of jihad makdissi . i did introduced the new adds to the page and i inserted the URL as i should and i left u a summary of the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimak2012 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that you've probably already seen it DW but this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting the abuses of administrator Doug_Weller has been opened at ANI. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Just because you are the admin, you can remove an NPOV tag, but I am a user, then my addition of an obviously reasonable NPOV Tag is "disruptive"? how has Wikipedia become a dictatorship of you admins? 160.39.203.39 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
It is quite clear that although Wikipedia's intentions are to provide articles from a neutral perspective, you are there to police articles that do not fit your narrative. You are quite happy for people to read misleading information, perspectives from journalists and outright slanderers who flippantly name call people which only reinforces the view of a 'chosen' few.
Secondly, just because someone claims to have done something in their lifetime, this should not be presented as 'fact' as though they have done it. For them to have accomplished or endured something in life, there needs to be science to reinforce those claims. I could claim to have swum the Atlantic and have people on either shore verifying I have done so but without evidence to support this other than testimonies, they are just 'claims' that I have made and others that are willing to collude with me on the matter.
You obviously have quite a lot of spare time on your hands, or you are a salaried employee with their own agenda, or both. Nothing that I have done can be seen to be misleading, the sources that I have provided are trustworthy (whether you deem the actual individual to be trustworthy or not is a different question, what sources they are referring to are the sources in question and the ones that should be scrutinised). I find it amusing if not pathetic how you simply reverted back to the 'original' article without considering any of the edit as valid. If your intention was to shun the neutrality of individuals willing to make the odd contribution then you've succeeded.
I add factual information to the page with reference pages that back up the addition to clarify the informaton that was already there. It doesn't fall under the Vandelism criteria you listed. I ask you leave it as corrected since it is factual and correct. I did try to keep what I added brief and to the point. there is quit a few things I could add that would clairfy Yahweh verse El better, but I avoided that to keep from making major adjustments to this Wiki page. As you can tell I'm not good at spelling or punctuation. So I do invite a edit that helps make what I added paragraphed better. Thank you for considering my request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren316 (talk • contribs)
@Doug Weller So you are saying on Wikipedia facts and truth are shunned? so Wikipedia is a shame of a site full of false inaccurate information. just because there is a article, or book someone wrote doesn't mean they know the truth, it is full of opinions and second or rumored accounts, only facts can be found living the situation on your own. even people recounting history that they lived is full of holes. Well a person that shuns the bible can say the same thing, I get it. but how can you then say "We at Wikipedia rely on this book but not this one"? is it because you don't like the Bible so then somehow it makes it untrue? please by all mean explain your stance on this? I await you to be real with me not just dismiss what I wrote and quoted because you personally don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren316 (talk • contribs)
@Ian Thompson The factor of the matter was I posted clarifications on already posted statements that were not very clear. I put a clarifying statement in. I added references of source to the information. unfortunately the source of my info (the Bible) was a inappropriate source per Doug Weller. So he dismissed what I wrote because he doesn't agree with the source. I am guessing Wikipedia doesn't feel things are fact unless they say so. I thought Wikipedia was a source of knowledge from difference sources. I can now only assume as that Doug Weller is the obvious managing editor, that Wikipedia is then the world and history according to Doug Weller. Kind of sad. If you truly are a Christian then you would then agree that the Bible is as a reliable source as any other verbal history book (since 99% of books of history all started out as verbal till someone finally wrote down what they learned) So then how can you back Mr. Weller in his belief that these other history books can be quoted as reliable but dismiss the bible as unreliable?Loren316 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
My edits were not original research. I merely read the actual sources cited and clarified their implications. The article as it was written was insinuating much stronger claims than the sources supported. 100.33.104.99 (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, notices of Books & Bytes, The Bugle, and so forth? Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Oh, yeah...and The Signpost"...
Hey Doug, how are you doing? Does this book pass the WP:RS test?
I believe it does, but I just wanted to check it up with you. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Doug, this looks like the beginning of an edit war at Book of Numbers: [11]. It looks like a repetition of edits made last August and September, and now the edit summaries are starting to look like shouting. I don't know if there is anything you can say to bring them to the talk page. Corinne (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I have messed up the request. What should I do now? Is it best to revert and start again? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You have done a lot for Wiki Archana Venur (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Doug:
Thanks for your vigilance concerning the Moorish Science Temple of America. Certainly an article like this will tend to attract folks with a particular (and particularly strong) point of view. I don't get here a lot, and mostly it's to upload photos. I will review the article in the next several weeks in some depth, adding citations, etc.
Your work is very appreciated. Mr. Harman (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I've CU blocked Nevets20, Nevets4 and Nevets3. Thanks for your vigilance, but looking at your block log I'll say that for years I've found that being civil can get you a hell of a lot further than personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. May be you are a Jew and you think I was against you. Rest assured I AM NOT.
I am interested in FACTS only. Verifiable FACTS.
The rest is *details* and the copyright issue can be solved by providing the BBC original website (as I did), if you prefer; but please note that the video itself is not viewable/has been removed there (that is the only reason why I gave BOTH links).
The notability question is dependent on weather the issue is censored (or not). So yes it may be WP:UNDUE unless the issue itself is CENSORED by the same global media who gives us all the news information (and this needs to be addressed by the WP community once and for all may be).
So may be I will go to arbitration but for this separate issue INSTEAD. May I suggest you bring up this issue as well in your discussions?
Cheers.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
PSS: I usually *NEVER* speak about this on WP, yet look at the "date filed" column for doc 11 carefully. It says: "2014-08-06" which is BEFORE doc. 10's decision. So they had to make an "investigation" within the Court to find and file those registered documents (See doc. 12 for proof.) -- and this is a US district Court and I am a US citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered about that guy's edits also. Took a Google Maps Street View ride from the 19/26 split to Cane River watching the signs (still in the warm AZ climate until spring). Newest SV photos were taken on a glorious June 2013 day, hi-res, lots of fun. Was able to verify the signs were all US 19 up to the turn-off for US 19W, which is just before Cane River. From there on, US 19E.
Now I'm looking for some cites for the new contract for the work east of town, although that should probably go in the Yancey County page. The new contractor is doing a great job, moving fast.
Also have pent-up desire to put in the 2010 Census figures. Summary is in the inbox, but the Demographics section needs editing. Would like to compare the two Census', or is that OR? Shapwolf (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Doug, could you perhaps review the webhostblock on 88.190.64.0/24, or tell me if an editor can challenge a block or the removal of IPBE when he himself is not affected by it?
User:LouisAlain has been blocked for more than a week, see his talk page and Wikipedia:AN/I#User still blocked, and a discussion of the merits of the block seems impossible because of the privacy policy. A moot point imo, LouisAlain's statement that he was blocked until 11 feb 2019 left 5 possible IP ranges, only one of them was inside the larger range previously blocked by Elockid for which LouisAlain was granted IPBE; fr.wikiscan.org gave two IP addresses in that range, one of the edits by the ...31 address on the french wikipedia was signed "LouisAlain".
Last year, when LouisAlain changed his ISP and found his new IP address was blocked (User_talk:LouisAlain#Blocked.21), Elockid said he based the block on RIPE saying that the range was allocated to Dedibox. As Thibaut120094 pointed out at the time, Dedibox is no longer using those IPs, their website says so: "Les IP en 88.190.0.0/16 & 88.191.0.0/16 ne sont plus en fonctionnement".
The host name for that LouisAlain's IP is "ran75-5-88-....fbxo.proxad.net", indicating that it is a Freebox modem/router, no different from the more than a million other Freebox users; I've given examples of 8 other ramdomly picked IPs in the ranges that Free ASA uses: diff.
On the other hand, when you look at the host names in ranges that DO belong to Dedibox, you find a lot of different domain names with only one host (apart from poneytelecom.eu):
RIPE still lists 88.190.64.0/24 (and all other 88.190.X.0/24 ranges it seems) as assigned to Dedibox, but that only means the maintainer (PROXAD-MNT) hasn't removed or updated these entries yet. Maybe not a priority because these changes happen within the Iliad group (and the tech-c, admin-c, abuse contact listed are proxad's). Proxad is the name of the network used by Iliad's subsidiaries; Iliad enterprises, Dedibox SAS, Online SAS (Dedibox and Online merged in 2012) are hosting companies, Free SAS, Alice ADSL, Iliad Free Wimax are ISPs.
Other users have commented as well, like Rexxs. Mike's answer states that "the information from multiple venues shows that it's a web host". I see nothing to suggest it's not a Freebox modem/router, and wonder if some of its features are mistaken for a web host server (it has a linux server built-in, digital TV, VoIP, RAS and serves as wifi hotspot for other Freebox users). Prevalence 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the talk page of El (deity). Israell (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Doug, we have a casual WP:ARARAT on Nefertari. As you can see, his edits are a little fooler than usual: changing Nefertari into Nefertiti, adding ortographic errors, restoring deprecated persondata... Quite a development. I'm going to PM you later. Khruner (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I've deleted the two "documents" over on enWS as being outside our criteria for inclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Standard offer. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Canada#Oldest Aboriginal Presence --Moxy (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I know, that talk pages aren't forums. But it is related to the article. There is such discipline as human engineering that still do use race as a variable in anthropometric studies, such as CAESAR. Therefore the question arises: do all modern science consider race a "social construct"? Эйхер (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I mistakenly reverted your recent edit on Baal and immediately self-reverted. Sorry. Editor2020, Talk 03:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hellow sir please dont delete proper matter as you done at page Vaddi adding info is vast process but delete is very simple if you un satisfy with content add [citation needed] un necessarly dont delete contents of page vaddi as proper references were added WP MANIKHANTA WP MANIKHANTA 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The edits by Pol9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made me realize I don't know of any specific policies or guidelines that talk about mental illness in BLPs. I see WP:BLPCAT includes "suggest that any living person has a poor reputation
" which could theoretically cover mental illness, I wonder what you'd think of a proposal to include mental illness to religious beliefs and sexual orientation as things that require self-identification in BLPCAT. My only thought is that some BLPs might have court diagnoses (e.g., a criminal with a mental illness) which might require a caveat. Curious what you and your talk page stalkers think before I head over to VP.
Messaging you in particular because you've dealt with the linked user and this topic before. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 07:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like it if I could stay out of this. All I did tonight was to revert a suspicious IP who did massive and selective deletions. The claims that I have written on Avril Lavigne's page are now sourced and that issue had been solved before. If you disagree with the source, it can be deleted (although one of the source is an interview with Lavigne herself). The one in Alba's page is also sourced from a foundation who seems legit, although I can't remember where the claim was originally from. If it is against your policies, you can delete it. Other than that, all I did was to revert a suspicious IP who massively deleted content. Don't rush vandalism conclusions on me, as a matter of respect. Thank you. Pol9 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Doug, Permstrump, Only in death I post my thoughts on VPI at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#BLPCAT.2C_mental_illnesses.2C_and_learning_disabilities. Please feel free to comment there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Dougweller. There's just been a new change of eras at Aesop's Fables which slipped in without you or I noticing. I've checked on his history and it seems deliberate and persistent, despite a warning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnsgreat) at the start of 2015. Could his account be suspended for a short while to reinforce the warning? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
For Tower of Babel as indefinite, constant removal of "myth" by IPs as the article is one of those "controversial" topics relating to Genesis/creationism. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sir please help me that i am new to wikipedia and i dont know copyrights use. I also dont know that maintaining two accounts is punishable I thank that my sockpuppet was blocked and i will use only one account. Please excuse that i am new to wikipedia. The content i added to Vaddi was true please help me to add more info to that page awaiting for your help Thank you WP MANIKHANTA 11:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
What may be a school account here received a final warning for vandalism at the end of February. The same behaviour is continuing and the account seems to be mostly used for that. Is it time to consider a temporary suspension? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dougweller for your action on both the matters I raised. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit at David Barton (author), is a promo edit, and my main concern is that the edit summary, which contains contact information, should probably be squoshed like a bug. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Re your protection of the article, perhaps you're not aware of this. There's in fact been surprisingly little activity in response to their call-to-arms. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Asking since you're an arbcom member: Is it okay to create shortcuts on decision pages (like this, or should I ask a clerk to do it for me? EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Mikemikev's IP's are no longer South Korea, but from Wales. He moved back to Wales this month (he's Welsh). He's mentioned this elsewhere publically on a forum about , but I wont link to it as it might be against Wikipedia rules. But in this message he claims he's going to go back to vandalizing both Wikipedia and Rationalwiki on the race pages. There is no doubt the following IP from Wales is his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.149.182.25 ArmyMenRTS (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
From one rumored descendant of lumberjacks to another, may I ask a favor? I'd like to keep this a secret. Can you help? (Short-term semi-prot might be prudent, too, but that's a judgement call still too early for me to make.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug, you have protected the article Mahidevran Gülbahar. But you should realize that the article is protected soon after an editor removed a paragraph. So you’re keeping the article as the last editor wishes to be (with reduced information) . This is not fair. If you have to protect the article why don’t you protect it as it was before the paragraph removed ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Doug, there is an ip which since a couple of weeks insists (despite several reverts) to add to this article (a real battleground, mainly because of the myriad of Turkish users who are watching the historical soaps on Turkish TV) an interview to an "alleged descendant" (!) of Mahidevran. The IP pretends that interviews are per se RS, and that the burden of demonstrating that they are not falls not upon him, but upon us (the poor other editors). Could you please have a look at the article? After two reverts and a couple of messages, I give up. ;-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm User:Worldandhistory. You have locked the page Mahidevran Hatun on the above request without investigating "a real battleground", or so the request says. It seems you are taking unjust advantage of being the administrator; which itself is a violation of Administrators Policy. The interview is rather not cited as a reference, IN FACT, the interview is not cited AT ALL. None of the article's content has been changed as per the interview's content. Only the presence of that interview (it's existence) is mentioned in the article (at no point emphasizing that the information is correct) because there's no policy violation in that. Claims can be presented with the claimants. It's up to reader to choose which seems to be more reliable. This is perfectly admissible in WP. I hope as a wise administrator you will take a wise action or at least reverted the changes made by the later user. Worldandhistory (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for your answer! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't withhold your guidance about "references". I need your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwnirotide (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Doug Weller I mean your answer exactly about references, so I ask my questions here and wait for your answer: Would you please give me some references as counterexample? Did you read EVEN one of them? (e.g : The Cambridge History of Iran) ? or this one ? Do you know who is Pierre Briant ? In general, did you read only one book on history ? I become happy to hear yes ... These are nationalism thoughts? or your thoughts is Anti-Iranian sentiment?Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
[1][2][3][4] [5] [6][7] [8][9] [10]
Would you interpret Achaemenid Iran for me ? or essentially you don't believe these references and Iranologists?!Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello, could you please look into removing the multiple users who are vandalizing the page of producer Dan Schneider (TV producer)?
Here is the list of edits and recent vandalism, a lot of them are changes to his name in the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Schneider_(TV_producer)&action=history
Here is the list of unregistered users making these changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.199.139.169
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.20.171.230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.132.97.43
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.46.193.78
Please help with this if you can, thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I would like to add a new section to Wikipedia's "Paul the Apostle" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle) as shown below (references not listed):
11. Physical appearance
The New Testament offers little if any information about the physical appearance of Paul, but several descriptions can be found in apocryphal texts. In The Acts of Paul[194] he is described as “A man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked” and in the Latin version of The Acts of Paul and Thecla it is added that he had a red, florid face.[195] In The History of the Contending of Saint Paul his countenance is actually described as “ruddy with the ruddiness of the skin of the pomegranate”[196] and The Acts of Saint Peter confirms that Paul had a bald and shining head, with red hair.[197]
As summarised by Barnes,[198] Chrysostom records that Paul’s stature was low, his body crooked and his head bald. Lucian, in his Philopatris, describes Paul as "corpore erat parvo (he was small), contracto (contracted), incurvo (crooked), tricubitali (of three cubits, or four feet six)", while Nicephorus claims that Paul was a little man, crooked, and almost bent like a bow, with a pale countenance, long and wrinkled, and a bald head.
Pseudo-Chrysostom echoes Lucian’s height of Paul, referring to him as “the man of three cubits”.[199] Paul himself admits to having been ‘abnormally born’, [200] perhaps suggesting some kind of deformity such as being crooked or hunch-backed, that tormented him.[201]
Would this be acceptable? No mention of Paul's physical appearance is made anywhere in the article and the new section contains only traceable (historic) accounts. I am also not an auto-confirmed user, so I would not be able to add it myself at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - I just wanted to check initially. Here are the references:
194. Barnstone, Willis. ‘The Acts of Paul’ in The Other Bible. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, p. 447.
195. Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1931, p. 448.
196. Budge, E.A. Wallis. ‘The History of the Contending of Saint Paul’ in The Contendings of the Twelve Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdomes and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists. Vol. 2. The English Translation. London: Henry Frowde, 1901, p. 531.
197. Ibid., ‘The Acts of Saint Peter,’ p. 501.
198. Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on The New Testament. Vol. 6. II. Corinthians and Galatians. Glasgow, Edinburgh and London: Blackie & Son, 1844, p. 212.
199. The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/, s.v. ‘Paul, Saint.’
200. 1 Corinthians 15:8
201. 2 Corinthians 12:7
I am new to this, so how should I proceed? Can or should anyone else comment? How do I get past the "auto-confirmed user" requirement to add it to the WP article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added the topic to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Occasionally, I've seen editors told not to use Wikipedia for promoting non-neutral, original research or undue weight, after which the editor places the POV content in other Wiki areas such as WikiSource or WikiQuote, generally with links to that material either from their Wikipedia user page (usually in regard to WikiSource) or articles (usually in regard to WikiQuote). Are there similar processes for dealing with those issues on those sites? They don't seem to have well estabalished policies or mechanisms for dealing with such issues. Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this seems gossipy, but I just took a closer look at this editor and their history. They seem to be an SPA with very strong right-wing views, given their name, the quote on their user page and their editing history. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having political views or being an SPA. I don't expect you to find any nefarious over-the-top POV pushing if you also look into them, either. I basically just wanted to voice my agreement with the concerns you expressed here and explain why I agree without doing it right there, where it's sort of a slap in Connor's face. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I think it might be time to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look at Connor's activities... He has 5 or 6 edit warring warnings, and a whole host of related warnings on his user page about this subject, just in the past few weeks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)