![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
If you have to warn me for disruptive editing, at least provide good reasons to undo my legitimately performed edit, instead of motivating it with "it does for me". What kind of motivation is that? Who are you? The ruler of the world? Seems pretty hypocritical to warn someone for something after performing the same exact thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.67.27.131 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
(Talk Page Stalker Ramblings; Third Edition; Volume 3; Page 7; Paragraph 2; subsection iii) It's not that "[We're] right and you're wrong and that's it" - it's that other editors have followed the Wikipedia policies, and you haven't. Your excuse is that it's your first time here. Fair enough - learn from your mistakes. Instead of being passive-aggressive yourself, take this as an opportunity to learn how things are done, and roll with the punches, coming back a better editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It gets really tiresome indenting your edits to keep with the flow of the discussion. Try putting one more ":" than the previous comment for me, k? Thanks so much. It helps others follow along seamlessly. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Your talk page observers seem to be depleting the stock in your biscuit barrel. Anyway, biscuits are better than trolls. bonadea contributions talk 17:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
((subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday))
to your friends' talk pages.(Sent: 06:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC))
The Ghodsee and Sehon article in Aeon (2018, cited in the entry) criticizes the Black Book of Communism's data, without carrying out any data analysis. It mentions disagreements between some of the authors of the Black Book as though this discredits the calculations, although the numbers are still generally understood to be high. In fact, Ghodsee and Sehon state "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed." The entry does not use the source accurately.
Ghodsee and Sehon claim that conservative groups use the number of killings under communism to argue "two separable points: (1) a historical claim about people dying under communism that leads to (2) the conclusion that communism should be rejected as a political ideology." Ghodsee and Sehon then argue that there is no necessary connection between the deaths and the ideology. There are authors, such as Orwell, who argue there is a connection (coercive folk rise up bureaucracies in coercive systems) but I pass over them here. Ghodsee and Sehon commit Flew's 'true Scotsman fallacy" [1] in claiming that observed communist regimes are not indicative of the ideology. Thonotosassa (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi Doug,
We've both recently edited the "Cult" Wiki page, and seem to disagree about how to describe them: [1]. I'm not going to re-revert, because I get where you're coming from and I'm trying to wean myself off of editing controversial articles. I don't think that the version you reverted back to is referring to all religious groups as Cults, but I do see the term itself as inherently, deeply loaded. I tend to think that the word Cult is a pejorative that's lost any neutral authority. I don't think that there is any definition of Cult out there (other than the ancient Roman & Greek varieties) that doesn't outright insult the group in question. Sometimes I win these arguments on Wiki, sometimes I lose :). AnandaBliss (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Hope you are well. For info, I've opened this SPI case as you were involved in closing a previous sock for the same user. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hoping your month is great — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I'm doing SPI Clerk training, just wanted to swing something past you without treading on your toes. You CU blocked Iamgood40 as a sock of Rage476 a couple of weeks back. Another sock appeared (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rage476), which has been blocked and tagged; wondered if you wanted me to tag Iamgood40 for the record. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug, there's a senior editor running around making grammatical changes and, when asked to back his latest up with a reference to the Chicago Manual of Style, defends himself with gobbledegook. It's a small point but is there a forum in which to discuss such conduct? Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
user:Binksternet is edit warring and has violated the 3RR. He is also removing sourced content--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:B03E:E0D7:FE7C:7A1B (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me about the restrictions, regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. I'm just wondering, did I edit anything I wasn't supposed to? I'm pretty sure I was very careful and only posted an edit request on the article's talk page without changing anything that has to do with the main article. Ziad Rashad (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
GenQuest "scribble" 04:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20)) to your friends' talk pages.
![]() |
Natalis soli invicto! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy Holidays! |
Hi Doug Weller, May your holidays be merry and bright, |
![]() |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
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 Merry Christmas, 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 Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas woug! Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The editor who made this edit has been quite busy creating much work for others, but thankfully has not crossed the 500 edit mark yet!
I've just left copious messages on their Talk, but I wonder if it might be better if some bot reverted everything they have done in the realm of finding citations. A bunch of inapt refs is worse than multiple instances of "citation needed", since it gives the impression that a statement is supported and can be trusted. Reviewing their work involves diving into a bunch of disparate sources, plus the usual mechanics of reversion. I'd prefer not to be the one to do this massive cleanup.
I wish somebody had determined the editor's level of ability before turning them loose. If this person has interests, they should have been sounded out on what they like to read about before letting them take pot luck with whatever articles need citations. I'd love to hear your feedback.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Talk pages are expressly for ipen discussion and to deny this priveledge to editors goes against common sense and established Wikipedia precedent. If you do not appreciate other intelligent people freely and openly expressing views contrary to your own, you should leave the Wilipedia project. This is an Open Encyclopedia. It is not a grounds for censorship or totalitarian thought suppression. Despite your personal political beliefs, we are attempting to keep a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia. You have been reminded. Haerdt (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
freely and openly expressing views. Rather, they are for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
You’ve been reported,. I may not be following the exact coding procedure. Excuse me. I understand you are a senior editor and you may think you have some clout, but I do not appreciate the obnoxious approach you took to censoring my content. Don’t be a fascist. The preservation of knowledge neutrally and with a high degree of fairness is important. Be kind.
Happy new year. Haerdt (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you read/listened to the evidence and research Nilesh Oak has put together around dating of Mahabharata and Ramayana ? Or, are you just going by him being a chemical engineer and not an academic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S raghu20 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@S raghu20 — Challenge him. Haerdt (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
Your words and actions as well as your attitude towards me over the past 24 hours demonstrate you lack good faith, kindness, and good will towards people of dispositions other than your own. Check yourself. This is my only warning to you. I am only a messenger. Good luck. Haerdt (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
MRRaja001 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.
— al-Shimoni (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a))~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20)) to your friends' talk pages.
JACKINTHEBOX • TALK is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20)) to your friends' talk pages.
((User:TimothyBlue/Cards/Happy New Yea== Continued reversions with IP editor ==
Hey Doug. You went back-and-forth a couple times with an IP user over at The New American, and a similar thing is happening at Project Syndicate. I've continued that and left a couple notices on their talk page (which I assume they're not looking at).
I'm not really sure what the next step is here, and I'm unsure whether my reverts are productive. Do you have any suggestions for next steps? Is there a usual protocol for persistent IP editors?
Jlevi (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this edit is really an improvement, as that wording implied that the nonsense fringe view has more general support. I have updated it to reflect the source, indicating that it is the view of some fundamentalist Christian groups (and some in this context reflects the actual case).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug - you tend to follow/maintain several of the pages and categories that I have spent some time editing over the past year. Watching your edits/reverts and how you handle things has taught me a lot about working on Wikipedia. Lately, I've done a little bit of editing on a specific page and I've run into another editor who there has been some conflict with. I was hoping you might be willing to look at the situation and give me some guidance on handling it. (And if I'm handling it wrong, I'm open to that feedback.) Specifically, it's the cast list on The_Chosen_(TV_series) page. The problem (IMO) is that the cast list is being based on inclusion of an upcoming season that has not happened yet. It's only in production. The other editor is including information that does not have a verifiable source (as far as I can tell), and is basing this on their own OR. Every edit to change this, and he/she steps in and reverts it back. This page is probably outside of the usual places you work on, but I'm looking for some guidance from an experienced editor as I want to get better as an editor, which is why I asked you. Thanks in advance for any assistance/feedback/coaching/whatever. Butlerblog (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Could you please have a word with IbnTashfin97 who's been edit warring for quite some time, especially on the Almohad Caliphate article (reverting multiple editors), and is now casting aspersions[2][3]. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Doug. I was wondering if you could take a look at the talk page for "Arab Slave Trade" (Talk:Arab_slave_trade). A new user has made a controversial proposal to turn the article into a disambiguation to a series articles they've created, named based on geographic areas followed by "slave trade", with the articles treating these as terms used in scholarship. These are novel concepts not actually treated as singular concepts in reliable sources, despite the way the introduction of the articles they wrote asserting that these are terms in common use. The editor proposed it, by their own admission, because he didn't like the Arab ethnicity being associated with the term "slave trade", and named the articles based on the example of "Transatlantic slave trade". It was implemented with just the discussion of four users, with three of them being regular editors, who quite frankly... Should know better. I'm sorry, but I think this is a major violation of Wiki policies on OR, neologisms, and WP:COMMONNAME, and (based on what I've seen) WP:POVFORK. Your opinion would be invaluable, if you can spare a few minutes to look at the situation. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
![]()
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Your words and actions as well as your attitude towards me over the past 24 hours demonstrate you lack good faith, kindness, and good will towards people of dispositions other than your own. Check yourself. This is my only warning to you. I am only a messenger. Good luck. Haerdt (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug, I noticed that you had worked with Conan The Librarian here[[4]]. Would you be willing to help moderate some of the discussion at the parent Douglas Murray (author) article? A relatively new editor (acting in good faith) is trying to make article updates. I'm concerned that a number of their edits have issues but I haven't been able to convince them to pause the edits and collaborate on the talk page. I understand they feel my intent is simple obstruction and I am frustrated that they are moving forward when consensus isn't clear. Still, I think they are acting in good faith. Thus I think we have a blend of 3 issues and I'm hoping you can help balance them out. Issue 1, I may be wrong about all of my sourcing concerns and feeling that consensus isn't established. Issue 2, they may be incorrect in feeling consensus is there. Issue 3, they feel I'm only trying to obstruct and thus my concerns/views can be ignored. Anyway, this is not an ANI level issue, rather having a parent step in and help the squabbling kids get along could be helpful. Thanks for you time. Springee (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not remove anything from Secession in the United States.I added two sections. Check once. Thank— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasaotem (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I get it dont state facts certain admins dont like! I get or they will get there fellow bloggers to gang yup on you! IM done I wont bother again! Good luck with lifes work and great achievement! This is why people dont trust wiki any more and dont donate! I dont care about your blog! I wont bother wasting my time try to get facts past bigots!--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, can you explain why you have extended confirmed protected the articles of the Senate election candidates in Georgia? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You made allegations that my recents on the article "Coalition against Genocide" was defamatory. However, I don't really see the basis for this claim. I made sure I followed the neutral point of view guidelines and specifically made clear that the allegation were made by specific individual organizations and writers. Also, You claimed that I used unreliable sources. Which ones are you specifically referring to. The report made by the Hindu American Foundation is pretty extensive and contains information that cannot simply be brushed aside. Additionally, there is a criticism section in the Hindu American Foundation with allegations made by the coalition against genocide. Krao212 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Doug,
I'm concerned about the notability of this article subject. Take a look and give me your best judgement. I'm not seeing reliable sources and doing a BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything further. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Forgive my lack of communication, or poor communication, as I am still figuring out how to edit Wikipedia. The image on Right Side Broadcasting Network's Wikipedia page called "Libby Kayleigh Interview jpg." was flagged for copyright, so I wanted to clear things up regarding that.
I work for Right Side Broadcasting and was asked by the owner to update their Wikipedia. The image that I used was not taken by me, but I had permission from the owner to use it in my Wikipedia edit. However, if you prefer me to say that the image was not mine and to cite it as such, I will be more than happy to do so.
Look forward to hearing from you soon,
Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Alex2021 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Egyptian hypothesis until a consensus is reached. You have been involved in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy since the beginning - please could you lend a hand if you have the time? Wdford (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You're already aware of this editor, siince you nominated their Draft:List of Jewish Communists for deletion. Take a look at the evidence of other problematic edits on my talk page here. Liz also deleted several of their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What is the nature of the protection on the Bill Ayers article? What brought it on? I'm not outraged; I'm trying to understand what is going on as this is an article that I have made minor edit(s) on. I did not find any discussion protection on the 'Talk' page. TIA. Seki1949 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
After seeing the user's contributions, (like this, this, and this), I am very tempted to just indef them as NOTHERE/NONAZIS. What do you think? Sro23 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:List_of_Jewish_Communists
And what somebody else said about this user,
(Confusing Israel's cause with American Jewry in general is a common mistake among antisemites) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans&diff=989293926&oldid=989242367
They also did this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgy_Arbatov&diff=1001684192&oldid=1001017733.78.97.16.58
78.97.16.58 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Fascism article is completely biased to the point that Fascism is only a Right-wing thing. By reading definitions of Fascism on other sites, it is clearly not JUST right wing. It is a type of governmental system that can be applied to any political position. To not call Communism Fascism is obviously not accurate. Natzi Germany was Socalist, not right-wing.
Left leaning editors are in danger of turning Wikipedia into a nitch sight if they are allowed to twist the truth. If that is what Wikipedia wants to become, so be it. It will not be used by half the population, and half the schools in the country. I have found this bias clearly written in many articles. And when I edit them to be more center and accurate, my edits are removed.
I don't know who the "powers that be" are at W, but they need to make a decision if they want to give people complete and unfiltered information, or if they want to be a left-wing instrument of the Fascist Woke Cancel Culture.
As a former and long time donor, I won't donate any more until I begin to see some balance back in their articles. There are MANY online encyclopedias, and it's not hard to find and recommend another one that is fairer.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fascism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
In Poland the anti-Semitic Falanga, led by Boleslaw Piasecki, was influential but was unable to overthrow the conservative regime of Józef Piłsudski. Vihtori Kosola’s Lapua Movement in Finland nearly staged a coup in 1932 but was checked by conservatives backed by the army.
The Arrow Cross Party (Nyilaskeresztes Párt) in Hungary, led by Ferenc Szálasi, was suppressed by the conservative regime of Miklós Horthy until 1944, when Szálasi was made a puppet ruler under the German occupation.
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanzey (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your revert here. Whether Sina founded FFI is not in dispute. But how does the fact Person A founded Organization X (FFI) prove that he also founded Organization Y (WikiIslam)? Snuish2 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I know that you know how to handle cases where a person edits and states that he is the subject of the article, so I ask you to glance at this talk page thread and see whether an administrator is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Doug, I hope I'm doing this right.
The last few days have been quite - how to put it - something, and I think I need some consultation from third party users and/or someone "higher up". I'll try to keep it as short and accurate as possible, but it is my view of course. I'd like your general advisement, and whether I should file reports and/or appeal, and/or request for comments/third opinion to a larger audience.
I'm experiencing quite unusual/suspect behavior from select users, and I would even call it harassment. I feel like I'm willfully being singled out, threatened with bans and other disciplinary sanctions, and feel intimidated. I also feel that these users expect me to do everything within a few hours, if not more or less immediately. I have free-time, but not that much. Right now being on Wikipedia is basically like a 60-hour-a-week job for me, in the sense of how much I need to deal with at this pace (today I've dealt with this almost non-stop the last 9 hours). I feel that every time I make a good point, a good argument and or demonstrate (their) fallacies, then I'm only being retaliated against with how I (allegedly) violate policies or violate my subject-ban. In my honest view, I get little-to-no fair and reasonable counter-arguments. I feel that if I step out of line by a nanometer I get a knife to my throat.
I also want to say that I am intending to contribute on non-controversial/less-heated subjects (and have done so, actually), but in line with what I said above, this right now is like a 60-hour job, and I don't want to miss out/be blocked out from the section I started. I fear some of the users in question want it gone ASAP because they don't like it, and especially my participation too.
The last few days, pretty much at the time when you posted that notice on my talk page or so, I wrote on M. Greene's talk page, and contested (and wanted to discuss), just like multiple other people on the talk page, whether it's fair to label M. Greene as a "conspiracy theorist". That was not met with warm welcomes, and I find that the select (opposing) users in question were (and are) overly aggressive, unfair, actively seek the slightest mistake I (could) make and are (somewhat) stonewalling me. It has been my concern for a long time that Wikipedia uses the label "conspiracy theory" (like most other people and institutions) as if everything was perfectly fine with the term/label, when there's everything wrong with it. There's nothing new in that. This is a genuine concern of mine, and I have the best of intentions.
The section on the M. Greene talk page where I posted my most - if I absolutely have to say so myself - hardhitting and difficult-to-get-around-points, suddenly got closed with little-to-no response or argumentation in that section. Instead an ANI was filed (link is from archive), and I was singled out and the users in question speculated that there was Qanon mob wave incoming (a conspiracy theory, you might say, ironically). That ANI got closed real fast too, pretty much as soon as I posted my side of the dispute and provided a few arguments/comments. Allegedly, suddenly the "disruption", i.e. my arguments in the section on the talk page for M. Greene, was "gone" (time diff. between opening that ANI and closing the section on M. Greene is 5 hours and 10 minutes) and that was apparently enough for the ANI post itself to become closed. Obviously the "disruptions" stop when the section is closed. I post on the M. Greene talk page, which gets closed, then I respond on the ANI section as per insinuating request, which also get closed. It's difficult to stay in place when the very sections I'm in gets closed. After that, which is today, I woke up to a ban on editing about post-1993 US politics. I'm considering appealing this ban, since I don't think there's sufficient reason. However, I will abide by the sanction while it's there, to my best of abilities. Today I've also been confronted with several comments/confrontations on my own talk page, e.g. statements that say my "advocacy on WP is not successful" and accusations of forumshopping and comments like "It does not matter if your concern is genuine", and have to explain myself and give my personal opinions on M. Greene (as if that mattered). My account is being labelled as a single-purpose account (ANI post) even when there's, in my opinion, evidence to the contrary.
I feel I'm being outright assaulted for the slightest minor error I make, them actively surveiling me to the extreme, while other users can lavishly engage in ad hominem arguments and violations of policies without warning or reprimands like I'm subjected to. Now, I'm not saying I'm an angel, or that I didn't/don't make mistakes and learn the hard way. But I feel these - how to put it - assualts or special up-close-breathing-down-my-neck-kind-of-attention is not because the users in question are concerned about me wrecking everything, but because I make strong arguments and valid points they don't like and can't reason against. Of course, that's my view, and I hope you will take a look at it all.
I was being bold. I could have used Wikipedia's nuke, but I didn't. I could easily have engaged myself in even more controversial/heated subjects - easily - but I didn't, many of my recent contributions are quite fair and withholding. I have had my account for more than 11 years, and I've made other non-political and non-controversial contributions. If I need to prove my best of intentions, e.g. by avoiding contributing in controversial or heated subjects, or post-1993 US politics, or contribute in trivial areas, or whatever, then I'm very open to settling on something. I can refrain from posting about very heated/contested stuff as we could settle on (even if we disregarded my subject ban). But I seriously think there's more to it than this, for these few select users.
Involved users (who I feel are/were antagonizing/harrassing me/treating me unduly): Slatersteven, PaleoNeonate, Guy Macon, Newimpartiala
Involved users (who I don't feel are/were antagonizing/harrassing me/treating me unduly: Jdphenix, El_C
(a) NewImpartial has only been - how to put it - unfair and sour against me in the discussion on "conspiracy theory" as a value-laden contentious label. Also please note that it was El_C who subject-banned me, but he/she has not (to my recollection) treated me like the users Slatersteven et al., and I have thus not listed El_C with them.
The relevant pages:
My talk page - M. Greene section - ANI section - discussion on "conspiracy theory"
Some points of relevant interest:
Not all users are breathing down my neck and assult me with sanctions, to the contrary: "I'm more or less in the same boat as Lukan27"..."My behavior is at least as annoying as Lukan's and at the risk of WP:BOOMERANG, I'm not topic banned or blocked. No one's even warned me.", "They are clearly value laden as they are terms"..., "I question the utility of such labels, in that they have the potential to be cynically misapplied for nefarious purposes."...
Slatersteven says this is mentioning "an AP2 topic", but I was merely replying and objecting to his statement that I only started that section as a consequence of what happened on the M. Greene talk page, not to talk about post-1993 US politics.
This is apparantly okay to write but me replying to it (can't find the specific edit: "Do you care to explain why you add this small comment without signing?"...) (which also got the very same comment from IHateAccounts!) is apparantly not okay and I get this on my talk page, but IHateAccounts doesn't get a single comment or reprimand at all.. Please note that this user has also been blocked for sockpupetting, and also please review IHateAccounts's general history which is nothing else but talking about highly political and controversial/heated subjects. For comparison I can't make the slightest mistake, but an account like this can't engage lavishly in dubious behavior.
I have probably forgotten something, but I gotta get a break from Wikipedia now. Please ask if you have questions for me. Thank you for your time. Lukan27 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll just summarize my thoughts.
This entire process almost seems like an overly bureaucratic joke. Jdphenix (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As someone who has contributed to its talk page, you may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I think you should adjust your block on Special:Contribs/2409:4052::/32. The duration seems excessive given its block log. More importantly, as a hard block, it probably has high collateral. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug, I have run into increasingly disruptive behaviour by a new user user:Stefan Verlag who started out doing good-faith edits related to the Kambaata people and language. He is not happy with the fact that factual policy in Ethiopia and most of the literature see what he sees as one people and language as a conglomerate of several peoples and languages, including the Halaba people and the Tembaro people. He therefore goes through a number of articles, combining the numbers of these various peoples into the Kambaata population, and removing references to these peoples, sometimes citing questionable sources or even good sources (such as the grammar by Treis 2008) although they don't support his claims. On Stefan's talk page I made several attempts to inform him of the need to bring good sources, and to avoid original research; I finally warned him that continued editing in this way would lead to consequences. After this warning, he now proceeded with this edit, so that finally I feel forced to call in the support of an administrator. Can you please have a look and let me know what you think? Best wishes, and thanks, Landroving Linguist (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, This article has just been "created" as a pure unacknowledged copy of other editors' work from Tuva. I notice that you deleted two earlier versions - you might like to check whether the current editor could be another incarnation of your sockpuppets there. Glimpsing quickly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nittin_Das/Archive I see a description "Same interests as Nittin Das; military weapons, paramilitary organizations, religion in Asia/Asian religions,", which matches this one's edits. PamD 09:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you added the BLP sources banner to The_Chosen_(TV_series) (diff) back around new years. Since this is an article about a TV serious and indeed not a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), that banner seemed inappropriate. I wanted to let you know that I removed this in case there is some misunderstanding. SkotyWATC 01:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, maybe this revision should be deleted.-- 3knolls (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Hi Doug. I'd appreciate your thoughts on Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map, especially the bits cited to the strange 'journal' Present Pursuits of the Past. My WP:RS and WP:FRINGE alarm bells are ringing. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Good morning
This is in response to Important Notice that you placed on my Talk page, 20:03, 31 December 2020. I am now contributing to a lengthy discussion at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. That page has a notice mentioning that the article has been listed as a level-5 vital ('article Vital articles are lists of subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have corresponding featured-class articles') and has been rated as B-Class ('The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards'), then lists numerous WikiProjects for which the article 'is of interest'.
My questions are
If you prefer, please answer on my Talk page. Qexigator (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Would Elagabalus, an article over which there are periodic edit-wars over gender pronouns, fall under the discretionary sanctions from the GamerGate arbitration case. I've wanted to ask this several times, but I'm neither capable of telling whether that DS is applicable nor what the effects would be if it did fall under that DS scope. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I have seen similar notices on other people’s talk pages as well, but I don’t quite get what and when it is used for. I don’t really have an interest in those topics, but I was just instead responding to edit requests. Can you please clarify that for me? Thanks. 54nd60x (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Best regards Doug. A while ago a template was placed to an article I created [5], and the user who placed it is no longer active. We recently made many changes to it, so another opinion is needed. If you can take a look at it, I would greatly appreciate it. Have a nice day.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If they refuse to keep said location a secret, it is no longer a safe house it is a house. TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Do not remove edits that are factual and vandalize a page. Fedfan00001 20:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedfan0001 (talk • contribs)
((Doug, I cannot reach you any other way!)) User: Suzanne Olsson ([[ User talk: I hope you have got through this past year & pandemic OK. I worried about you. I am still working with local churches and agencies on emergency relief for my neighborhood. My web site crashed and now I am trying to squeeze in time to rebuild. Here's as far as I got: www.rozabal.com Thought you might enjoy it. If you need anything, let me know. Miss you. Stay safe and have a Happy Day! Sue]])
Hello, what is the correct procedure to finally get the Stations of the Exodus article deleted? ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Weller, I do not understand. I thought the goal was to improve Wikipedia and I spent considerable time and energy to improve article content, only to have it completely erased such that I cannot even view the content I wrote? How is that "helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." That article was tagged with requiring more information in the lead section and with requiring additional references, so I took it upon myself to do those things and make it better. I simply do not understand.Belain1737 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I attempted to read them but they are highly technical and full of legalese. The majority of references used on that society page are from sources written far more recently than the books I cited. Since I cannot see what I wrote that may have been a copyright issue, could you please explain in layman's terms what specifically was a violation? This makes no sense to me.Belain1737 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Since you seem to be well versed in the policies, I could not locate a definition for "family" in Wikipedia's guidance. Is there a defined degree to which someone is related that Wikipedia uses when determining whether an editor can edit a distant relative's article? When you go back far enough, many of us are related in some fashion. If left to an editor's discretion, I would define "family" as a living, immediate family member. Thanks.Belain1737 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ali, Sharif Aydarus (1955). Bughya Al-Amal fi Tarikh as-Sumaal. p. 107.
Here is the source book is in Arabic tho Ibn Jaziira (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I just deleted this recent spree of outright historic revisionism by a new user named "Moskerhus".[10]-[11] He is pressing ancient, historic sites as "Kurdish", including Taq Bostan, Bisotun, Temple of Anahita. This is just the tip of the iceberg. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, can anything be done about this IP at Hyksos 147.236.50.70? He's edit warring there about sourced information and has also posted some somewhat offensive edit summaries elsewhere, e.g. [12], [13]. Seems to have an anti-Arab POV.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
IP User:85.144.218.248 left me a talk page message that I believe violates BLP, diff=008313604. Apparently the block you had previously applied expired a few days ago. Would you be willing to hide/delete that message, and apply whatever sanction or warning that is appropriate? ...or let me know where else I should report it? Many thanks for the work you do. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you, but I am not sure what to do, and any help is greatly appreciated. There is an IP editor (a range of IPs, two so far, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.125.250.97 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.125.250.56) persistently adding highly tendentious edits and original research to the Haplogroup D-CTS3946 (claiming it is in the interest of balance). I engaged in a long discussion with them last night in Talk about one source they had insisted on adding, and whose inclusion seems to be WP:OR (since it was written before the discovery/reclassification of the haplogroup the page is about), they seemed, and still seem unwilling to WP:LISTEN on the topic. (Discussion here [[14]].) It continues to stand because I wish to avoid edit warring and they have not yet replied to my latest response.
They also added similar addition on the Haplogroup DE and Haplogroup D-M174 pages, but fortunately have stopped edit warring there. (The pattern of this current IP, like that of earlier users of which they remind me, seems to be to push the POV that haplogroups DE and originated in Asia, and periodically use sources misleadingly to do so.)
Now the IP (which has now shifted) has added a substantial amount of even more egregious WP:OR to the Haplogroup D-CTS3946 page, in which they have misrepresented two recent sources (it seems rather blatantly). I cannot revert because that would violate 3RR (and if I could, would lead only to an edit war anyway, which I do not want). I have tried to engage them in Talk (started a discussion) but I am not very hopeful. I would consider WP:ANI but the topic may be too specialized, and the IP may be more of a civil POV-pusher without very obvious conduct issues. The most recent topic I started is here where I explain the problem with the IP's additions: [[15]]
I thought to contact User:ABCEdit (who initially started the page, with contributions from me afterward), but they seem not to have been too active lately and may be busy, since they seem to be active across several language versions of Wikipedia (and I hope doing so is not WP:CANVASSING. Though I do not know what their biases are if any, and they did create the page). But I fear this may perhaps need the attention of an administrator.
This new IP range also reminds me somewhat of User:AsadalEditor (who was a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter), who persistently made very similar tendentious OR/misleading edits to the Haplogroup DE and similar pages (and with whom I engaged in discussion there in 2019), and also of various IPs at the time who made similar edits (and some of which I believe were socks of AsadalEditor/WorldCreaterFighter if I am not mistaken - some were blocked at the same time that he was, and whose seeming POVs and tendencies appeared very similar to his) with whom I also engaged (in the last three talk discussions. numbers 7, 8, and 9 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_DE).
Perhaps significantly, both those earlier IPs (such as these: [[16]],[[17]], [[18]], [[19]]) and the current IP range geolocate to Austria. Any attention to this matter is very much appreciated. As mentioned, this user is persistent and not very predisposed to listen, and at the risk of not assuming good faith, seems to be showing a pattern, which seems to me possibly to rise to the level of disruptive editing. Skllagyook (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I've had my eye on User:78.150.38.110 as a sock of indeffed User:Cassandrathesceptic, whose campaign was largely waged with numerous IP socks in the same broad geolocation (Yorkshire/Lancashire/Greater Manchester).
I notice you've encountered their views on terms for Native Americans here and here, which echoes your historical encounter with them here (the multitude of IPs informally signing as "Cassandra", unusually for them in a multitude of geolocations, though the last one (Bradford) is typical).
Other shared interests are the term Makar, cf. this with historical posts on the talk page here (this IP also being one of the Native Americans talk contributors) and here (fairly rarely, using the master account itself).
An interest in lynching, cf [20] with [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25].
Strong views on what constitutes Scotland (cf. this) and the promotion of the view that Scots should definitively be categorised as English are highly characateristic (particularly the latter, which is probably the focus of more than half of their/their socks' posts and this lengthy essay).
List of Scottish monarchs, cf. [26], [27], [28] and [29].
Hillsborough disaster, cf. [30], [31] and [32]
The absence of signing of posts is also characteristic.
FWIW, I note you've also encountered them at the end of this thread. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Noticed this user suddenly pop pup to add content (with obvious experience) to List of paramilitary organizations, the same content that known sock Sangheili spartan was kept trying to repeatedly add, prior to you indeffing him. FYI - wolf 14:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller. I’ve been having some trouble getting what I think is objective information onto various pages dealing with Mormonism. To keep things simple, I will restrict this to one locus, the page King Follett discourse. As you may know, this was a sermon delivered by Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, at the funeral of someone named King Follett in 1844. In the sermon Smith presented the doctrine that God was once a man just like us, and that there are an untold number of gods in the universe. Although he had apparently hinted at this earlier, this funeral sermon is where he spelled it all out. From the viewpoint of a historian, the sermon is significant because it changed the theology and direction of the LDS movement. Prior to that, Smith said that the doctrine of his movement was all based on the Book of Mormon: “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is or religion? We have none . . . I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion . . .” The Follett discourse fundamentally changed this because new doctrines were introduced contradicting the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of God and other teachings; all authority for doctrine was now in the hands of the acting president. From either a historical or theological view, this was a fundamental change that has every right to be presented in a Wikipedia page devoted to the Follett sermon. When I did this, however, User:FyzixFighter, who admits on his user page that he is a Mormon, deleted everything I had entered, using the usual claims about violating NPOV, etc., replacing it with some weak statements about “humanities premortal existence and divine potential.” If he was really interested in objectivity, then the proper course of action would have been to improve what I entered with better wording, etc. But to delete it entirely, apparently because the changes mentioned implicitly show that the LDS Church really doesn’t trust the Book of Mormon, seems to imply a violation of NPOV on his part. Sorry if the issue is a little complicated, but if FyzikFighter continues to have his way, a lot of objectivity in Wikipedia pages devoted to Mormonism will be lost. Thanks for considering this, Chronic2 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the last two sections at Talk:Tamils - the ones concerning the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Indrapala source. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Balance keepers and truth sayers |
Is it better to live in blissful ignorance or to set the mind the free ?
Bruce lee you see was just like me but he had no idea when to take the chips and forgot heroes have a darker side. Nash was just plain pathetic I mean come on man, had it not been for a car park in vienna I would of simply have had have written him off as a failed attempt enmtirely to be honest.These parascientific types arent all ,ade equal but NEO knew his place in it all and brokered a truce like a true hero does but one where all sides win and happiness prevails for a while. Tzan zu has tuaght me well and game theory both non and vooperativer help one manage th esecrets contained with in the music and the mathamatics and one would find there head fast after watch Richard Feynamn deliver messages full of ancient whispers. This would be in part due to the proud line of brothers and sisters behind me and to my sides and peripherals. Ther professor would see whimsy in turning sword to water and poison to cure would hen not Sir Weller of THE Knights of the ROund UUSr Feinsteinium77 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you for your suggestion. However, would you still not say that lack of neutrality should be argued? After all, this is what Oxford states about Asante. He has strong criticisms yes, but he also has strong praise from scholars as well, particularly African (Toyin Falola, Ndlovu-Gatsheni, etc.) and African diaspora scholars and even some Asian (like Yoshitaka Miike). Would the fact that only Oxford is listed in this section have Wikipedia playing more towards Eurocentric perspective? Which is at the heart of Asante's various analyses to begin with. Just a suggestion. I don't necessary disagree with that Oxford quote being there; but it being the sole outside perspective on the topic is disingenuous don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africologist (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Apologies. Will sign in the future. Africologist (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Hi Doug. Just wanted to thank you for your message. It is much appreciated. If this continues I will use the talk page to attempt to build consensus on the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Africologist (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Nice yow.... Sierra Mae (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at some article talk pages, including @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?
You are being informed of the discussion, since its seems you have edited related topic previously.
Please do join in discussions, Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug, I need to bother you again with user:Stefan_Verlag, whom you had temporarily blocked for disruptive editing at the end of January. After one more warning on February 1, he remained inactive until day before yesterday. Since then he started his edits in the same vein across a number of pages. This morning I warned him sternly about this on his talk page, but now, a few hours later, he did this edit, where he basically replaced the existing Ethnologue source with a source using the Ethnologue edition from 1996, because it better suits his purposes. Most of his other edits over the last few days did similar things - deleting or replacing good sources, or citing sources that actually don't support his claims. He doesn't seem to care about the warnings I give him in the edit summaries and on his talk page. Thanks! Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Our old friend R. Martiello is at it again, this time at Latins. I've reverted some of their changes, but I want to forestall another edit-war. Would you mind taking a look? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
AntoineHound (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
With respect to this: a quick glance through this editor's history shows that they're much more interested in using Wikipedia talk pages as a forum or blog than they are in making improvements. (I've warned them about their user page before, which is why I saw your comment.) The few times they have ventured into article space, they get reverted, they switch to edit-warring, and eventually they move on. I haven't had the energy to put together a WP:NOTHERE case at ANI, but I think it applies. --JBL (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
He clearly has misgivings, but that does not make one an anti-semite.If declaring that Jews are destroying America doesn't
make one an anti-semite, I'm not sure what does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, thanks for editing into 'the gympie pyramid'. It feels good that finally someone Wiki experienced had a look and it. Most of the changes I can understand, but some surprise me. In 2015 someone complained about his addition of Anthony Wheelers info to article. I guess you deleted that section.. Now you kept that one but deleted the other 2 arguments, Brett Green and Elaine Brown. I know, in particular Brett Green ( with is books) is questionable, but as he and his Grand father are investigating into the site for so long, I find they should be mentioned in 'history'. Also Elaine Browns survey into the the people who leased the land in the early days... very interesting. Just wondering whats your thoughts are to not include them? Wheelers article I find less informative ... who thought because its called pyramid it must be Egyptian, then the next smart idea, there are steps, so it got to be an Inca step pyramid... This is why I thought the article should be changed in the first place.
I am requesting sources from the Kabi elders at the moment in regards to the 40 year fight and the grooves, which I photographed myself.Someone added a photo apparently, this are the grooves I mentioned. I don't know this person and was told my own photos not to upload, because it would be 'my own investigation'.
To add a link citation for the 'A further survey by the Department of Transport ' section, I find only a google link to tmr.qld.gov.au PDF document, which is interesting to see how govs sees the history. How can I add this link? google seem to be black listed and on the tmr webpage I could not find this pdf. thank you for your time! Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings Doug. It's been awhile since i have made any edits.. I have found something new to add and needed your input o determine it it can be added. The source is a copy of the Supreme Court appeal from RAMAPOUGH MOUNTAIN INDIANS VS GALE A. NORTON – MAY 16TH, 2002, Docket 01-011703. The significance of this is the BIA failed to recognize us publically but in court they admitted they do. Last paragraph of Page 11.
[1]Cert of Writ
This changes the reason of why we were denied. Please advise your opinion. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi Doug, thanks for editing into 'the gympie pyramid'. It feels good that finally someone Wiki experienced had a look and it. Most of the changes I can understand, but some surprise me. In 2015 someone complained about his addition of Anthony Wheelers info to article. I guess you deleted that section.. Now you kept that one but deleted the other 2 arguments, Brett Green and Elaine Brown. I know, in particular Brett Green ( with is books) is questionable, but as he and his Grand father are investigating into the site for so long, I find they should be mentioned in 'history'. Also Elaine Browns survey into the the people who leased the land in the early days... very interesting. Just wondering whats your thoughts are to not include them? Wheelers article I find less informative ... who thought because its called pyramid it must be Egyptian, then the next smart idea, there are steps, so it got to be an Inca step pyramid... This is why I thought the article should be changed in the first place.
I am requesting sources from the Kabi elders at the moment in regards to the 40 year fight and the grooves, which I photographed myself.Someone added a photo apparently, this are the grooves I mentioned. I don't know this person and was told my own photos not to upload, because it would be 'my own investigation'.
To add a link citation for the 'A further survey by the Department of Transport ' section, I find only a google link to tmr.qld.gov.au PDF document, which is interesting to see how govs sees the history. How can I add this link? google seem to be black listed and on the tmr webpage I could not find this pdf. thank you for your time! Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. We've previously worked together on WikiIslam. I've done some cleanup of the IPT article, added some more reception of it, and have removed it as a source all articles in which it was cited. I noticed that you previously started a discussion on IPT on the reliable sources noticeboard. IPT has a lot of pages that a Wikipedia editor could potentially draw from, and I have no doubt it's going to start seeping into articles again eventually. Do you think it would be worthwhile to get it deprecated and added to the list at WP:RSPSOURCES? If so, how could we go about getting that done? One of the editors in the discussion you started also seemed to suggest the same: "I would say this source actually needs to be blacklisted ... Some of this stuff is effectively hate speech."
Eventually, I'd also like to do the same for Discover the Networks (DtN), a website run by the same organization that runs Jihad Watch and Frontpage Magazine, both of which are already deprecated. DtN was on several hundred pages before I started removing it. Snuish (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, 'Gympie Pyramid' gets vandalized by some idiots. Could you please reverse it to your last edit. I will copy the text and reverse every time I see them vandalizing. How can I report a profile to be deleted? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, the shape of those or design of the wall is clearly polygonal. I walked around it in Gympie, made photos. Those stones are all of different shape and set together without use of mortar. The wall is part of the history there and simply unexplained.
Please have a look at a video 'Pyramid Polygano Wall Gympie Queensland' at youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings Doug. It's been awhile since i have made any edits.. I have found something new to add and needed your input o determine it it can be added. The source is a copy of the Supreme Court appeal from RAMAPOUGH MOUNTAIN INDIANS VS GALE A. NORTON – MAY 16TH, 2002, Docket 01-011703. The significance of this is the BIA failed to recognize us publically but in court they admitted they do. Last paragraph of Page 11.
[1]Cert of Writ
This changes the reason of why we were denied. Please advise your opinion. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Thank you for starting the ball rolling. Ramapoughnative (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I am inquiring about your recent edits to the Politifact article. My contributions at the end of the article's introduction were removed, citing unattributed, "dubious" sources. This will be corrected. However, the preceding sentence uses little-known, local sources (Milwaukee Magazine and Rhode Island Future, respectively). I am seeking further clarity on this. How are the aforementioned sources considered reliable, especially compared to well-known, national publications, and shouldn't the statement be appropriately attributed in-text regardless? Loltardo (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Hi Doug, I started that FTN discussion in the hope User:Bob drobbs would stop flooding talk pages with his reasoning. He got virtually no support on FTN, but still carries on regardless. He made about 60 edits in promotion of or related to the idea that Jews should be called Middle Eastern, mostly on talk pages, starting March 5th. I tried to ignore them, but he threatens and executes small scale edit warring: Help come up with a fair, non-biased standard, that will be applied to people of all religions or I'll keep reverting
[37]. After I put an uw-ew on his talk page, he started adding POV templates to List of Middle Eastern superheroes and Middle Eastern Americans (April 5, here). He also did do forum shopping, not on FTN, but on NPOVN and on DRN (where it was immeadiately rejected by a volunteer[38]). I'm really at a loss what to do. Take it to ANI ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you undelete Battle of Dabhoi? It was deleted in 2012 due to creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. The subject is a notable event. I want to work on it. Undeletion might be helpful. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You blocked BritishSniper55 in Oct 2020 for sockpuppetry. I'm pretty sure the user Ukww1[39] is a sockpuppet, see identical editing style here:[40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.
I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.
I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Doug, I just happened to notice this article today. It is a complete mess. Actually it cannot really be edited seriously because this is just local newspaper yarning and gossip. I see now that I've done some fixes however, that you did a revert and stated that Marshall is not RS. True, but neither is Wheeler at skeptika com, etc. The fact is that there is only one source Archaeo/Brown that would pass snuff. Marshall is sheer provincial nonsense, reflecting a book by the son or grandson of an earlier Gympie resident who clearly fabricated a lot of nonsense, but since people obviously google for info, perhaps his synopsis of the BS should be used. I think actually that, if it is conserved, the article deserves just two paras, no more, stating where it is, the structure, settler viticulture, and the gossip stuff.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Doug, a disagreement has arisen on this Talk page and I'd like to raise the question of proper interpretation of MOS guidance in a wider forum. You once advised me how to do this, but I've forgotten; could you refresh my memory, please? Thanks in advance. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, what would be the process for deleting the Category:Prehistoric dinosaurs as it is meaningless ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I removed some banners from /Archive 32 that were probably accidentally copied to the archive. They don't really make sense there. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Doug. I was reading through your archives of things written here while I was away. I am slowly trying to reacclimate myself back into Wikipedia, hopefully, in a more constructive manner than the way I left for Winter break. I only stopped by to wish you well and thank you for your contributions, whether we agreed or not. I happen to think you are an amazing admin that allows the conversations to be played out within your talk page with minimal interference with the exception being when personal attacks occur. Thanks again and if you need assistance with anything please let me know. I'd accept any guidance from veteran editors like yourself. Thanks again. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You're doing a lot of arbitration work, maybe you're aware if there hasn't been some quotable ruling on the matter of era style re. ancient Israel and Judah. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I am not sure if the partial block of this user is configured properly. 13 minutes after the block, they again posted their anti-Ahmadi bits at Ahmadiyya, which they are supposed to be blocked from. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Lol. You both guys are a joke Quantum1278 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
(Talk Page Stalker) What I find to be an absolute joke is that the thought actually came to you to post that above, like that's what actually came to your mind, out of all the things that could have been said, nope, that's the epic comment that you just had to use. Doug is not a joke. Admittedly, I don't know PohranicniStraze in the slightest but I doubt they are a joke either. I only posted because I think it is beneath Doug to even have to respond to that nonsense on his Talk Page. Luckily, I'm here and I have no problem calling out senseless drivel. --ARoseWolf 17:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you've seen it already, but this ("I'm Not Saying It Was Aliens": An Archaeological and Philosophical Analysis of a Conspiracy Theory) is very interesting and could be useful for ancient astronauts etc.:
– Joe (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that Samuel Collingsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be an old "friend". Guy (help! - typo?) 08:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello again. This is Yuuyatails.
Months ago I had contacted you about a user whose username is Mini4WD, who doesn't like everyone else to touch the Mini 4WD article.
Right now, he's resorting to remove everything from it, effectively vandalize the article. I tried to revert the vandal edit, but this guy keeps removing contents and also resorting to showing hostile message against me in a edit summary, said he owns what he write and not everyone else.
Please do something about it.
Yuuyatails (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is your logic... “Coca Cola can delete all information on Wikipedia pages entitled, “soda pop”, “soft drink” and “cola”... and somehow Yuuyatails can wantonly delete massive amounts of content without any penalties... Wow... just Wow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini4WD (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, you CSDed Chengallur_Ranganathan. However it was a bad-faith tagging by a now-blocked sock. (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are_these_articles_eligible_for_deletion for more nominated, which were de-tagged). Would you be willing to undelete as there are some established editors who don't believe these are clear G5s. Thanks either way. StarM 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, in the history of Racism in the United States I see a dozen or so versions have been made invisible, starting with the one by Theurbanturban, and including nine of mine, but also some of other editors. Since you just edited User_talk:Theurbanturban, I suppose that they were hidden by you and maybe you hid more than you wanted to. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
Doug,
Will you just look in on this and make sure I am not doing anything that seems inappropriate from Wikipedia standards. I know I have reverted edits put in the article but I've tried staying objective as I have no connection, whatsoever, to the subject or regional conflict in question. As this is a BLP I am simply trying to keep eyes on it. I do not want to breach Wikipedia guidelines in the effort to do so. I just would like your perspective. Thanks, --ARoseWolf 17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug Weller,
Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanx for the partial block for User:Tracsstaff. Note, even if they were willing to follow the rules on the article, I believe their username is problematic. If you have any suggestions on how I could have handled the reverts, the edit summaries and what I wrote on the user's page, please let me know. Note, they did respond. It doesn't indicate that they understand/read any more about Wikipedia, but they did respond. I will take a look at the staff changes that the user tried to make for the infobox and if they are reflected in the webpage for TRACS, I'll make them.Naraht (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, it appears you may have blocked them from editing the redirect page Transnational Association of Christian Schools, not the actual page Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. Could you please block them from the Actual page as well?Naraht (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I pinged you, but just dropping a courtesy notification that you are tangentially mentioned in this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pc031985 casting aspersions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Judging from the edits to the Arthur Posnansky article and comments posted to the article's talk section, I strongly suspect that User 150.195.97.43, User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:F452:8713:6D39:8C57, User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:DAE:BD48:F031:8C2F, and User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E are all the same person. Recently, the same change and a variation of "discredited" to "disputed" have repeatedly from these IP addresses. Most recently, the same change as occurred at, 11:45, 23 May 2021, 11:25, 24 May 2021, AND 15:26, 24 May 2021, every time a different editors have changed it from "disputed" to "discredited". How does one deal with this weird mixture of edit warring and apparent sock puppetry? Paul H. (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC) OK, the 2604 addresses are the same range, and all the addresses geolocate to the same area. I've semi-protected the article for 3 months leaving he/her to use the talk page. If they continue to use IP addresses that make them look like separate editors, I may do more. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Seems I noticed some possible block evasion from Korvex (talk · contribs), this his sock Editshmedt (talk · contribs) as I understand blocked by you, have similar topics and edits with those IPs 142.116.103.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.116.0.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.127.171.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.127.154.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.120.69.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) especially about Biblical numerology, Gematria, Muhammad and the Bible, Gabriel's Revelation, European wars of religion. So much similar edits and at article Biblical numerology restored edit of sock Editshmedt (talk · contribs) and at European wars of religion article too by listed IPs, 25 February 2021 and 8 March 2021. So I suspect to it is all the same user. Would be good if you check, seems to that user could be one obsessive sock editor. 109.92.10.14 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements such as:
Zionists want us killed[42] in Paracetamol
Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[43] in Palestine 194
Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[44] in Islam in Palestine
No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[45] Joko Widodo
The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.
Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior, I get the impression this user is not here to built an ecyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). Should I go to ANI with this? –Austronesier (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Doug, could some admin look at the shenanigans at this Khazar page? It might look like a content dispute. But two editors, one with just 600 edits who seems basically to be interested in the Austrian school of economics, the other with 50 (over 9 years) are teaming ("we") there to disrupt an article that has been fairly stable in this particular definition they contest. I don't think, since it comes under Arbpia, that the chap with just 50 edits to his name should be barging into the I/P area (500 required). All this was triggered by some itsy-bitsy Times of Israel paragraph long article by a tyro that a Qatari journalist jumped on the Khazars as Ashkenazi nonsense, to state it was a conspiracy theory. Well, it has been used that way by anti-Semites and the usual fringe lunatic crowd, but far too many historical books treatingd the theory, wrong as it almost certainly is, haven't described it as a conspiracy (rightly so, since many Jewish scholars have explored it seriously in the past). I expounded at some length on the groups that have hijacked it for those polemical-paranoid ends in the Khazars article and here, but it is fringe. Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradwife on the paragraph that defines the term by removing the sentence “submitting to male leadership” because that sentence is an opinion (even the citation reference https://web.archive.org/web/20200122154237/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html states itself as an opinion article). Defining something based on an opinion is essentially creating a strawman fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (and also is against the wikipedia's guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Even if it is not the opinion of the wikipedia's author, defining based on NYTime's author's opinion, is writing an opinion).
The idea that Tradwife are being "submitting themselves to male leadership" should be address on the next paragraph that talks about controversies (since controversies are opinions), not on the definition.
You reverted my contribution and sent me a Notice on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fcolecumberri stating that I “have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies” (which I am not, I am only splitting opinions from definitions). On the paragraph you insinuated that I didn't “follow Wikipedia's policies” or “the page-specific restrictions” but you didn't specify which policy I am not following (If I am not following one, please tell me which. Do not only send me the link to the policies).
Fcolecumberri (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Best regards. Some time ago someone marked an article with the stub template [47], and now, this user is blocked. I would appreciate if you could review it, to see if the template is still needed. Thank you.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Hi Doug Weller, How are you doing? Coming to the point, I saw the homepage of Hubpages.com as blacklisted. In my opinion, if possible we should remove the homepage from the blacklist and we can exclude all the extension pages from that site and blacklist them. What do you say? - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Doug, I hope that you and your family are well. I need your help with a certain user and his edits on certain pages on the South Indian state of Kerala. It seems he has been warned prior to this for a similar activity (but the same objective) by another admin. The User:Kambliyil constantly puts in the terms "North Malabar" and "South Malabar" in pages on the villages towns and other places of the Northern districts in the state of Kerala. The administrative setup of India is Country-> State-> District. However he keeps putting in the aforementioned terms for no reason in the pages for districts and places in those districts of the state making it look like they exist officially.
One of the official Government(Kerala)-sites https://kerala.gov.in/districts lists the names of the districts at the administrative level. Another is http://districts.nic.in/districts.php?sid=KL From both its clear that there is the State and then of course the District. The "Region" is something that is completely amiss not just in India but most countries AFAIK and on Wiki too that I think holds. Also here is the "Region" list of India [[50]]
Please look at Kannur/Kannur district/Wayanad district/Kasaragod district/Kasaragod/Kozhikode district/Kozhikode/Malappuram district/Malappuram/Palakkad district/Palakkad. And I suspect User:Boschanot might be a sock0puppet if this user. I am no one to pass judgments but he around this same time is making these same kind of edits (among others).
Since time immemorial, the southwestern part of India, covering entire Kerala State was known as "Malabar" or "Malabar Coast". The entire west coast of the ancient polity of Tamilakam - which was present-day Kerala - was also called Malabar. From the early 1800s or so, when India was colonized, the British named the Northern part of the state as "Malabar district" before Malabar was always used (as were other terms) to mean entire Kerala with adjoining areas. It was only for the next 150 years or so till the formation of the state of Kerala that there was a place called "Malabar" (district). Since the 1950s, after Kerala's formation, there has never been at any level whatsoever, a formal or official term called Malabar (or North Malabar or South Malabar), in any sense. The entire state speaks the language of Malayalam in majority. Cultural differences are far more along the lines of religion and then caste than along district. In fact the main royal family in the Northern part of the state traces its origin to the primary royal family in the South of the state (as well as originates there) and the two have been in a tradition of mutual adoption of heirs for centuries.
I hope you do the needful and put this user in his place. As an admin you can ascertain whatever I have written to be correct. Hope you help. Regards.117.194.225.139 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Also apologies for any seeming disruption of your Talk page my post may have caused. It was obviously 100% unintended. I can only edit by mobile right now and am not very conversant with it.117.194.232.198 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)117.194.233.24 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Doug, I don't understand what the big box on my user page is. Can you please explain? Is it a warning, a flagging for being unruly or something else? Iskube (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Despite F&F warning him to stop describing a famed scholar of medieval South Asia in deplorable (and might I say, childish) terms, White Horserider seems to be not learning any lesson.
Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages.
his work is promoted by Cynthia just because it fits her narrative. BTW, Cynthia never came to India so how on earth she can examine inscriptions is beyond me
Lmao... You are obviously in love with Tablot's work.
Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hourse working on primmary evidences ???? ... And, No Cynthia seems fine to me this is first name of author.
Some stern warning might be necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, can you do something about the IP who keeps making unsourced changes to numbers at Battle of the Catalaunian Plains? Thanks.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
![]()
|
I made an edit on Y-chromosomal Aaron (which I noticed you've edited in the past, which is why I'm reaching out to you specifically, to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR).
In addition to reporting anomalous activity, I would like to get this edit (which I worked hard on) resolved. Thanks. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to get started on Libera, and the admin channel is invitation-only (as it was on Freenode). I saw you on the list of confirmed Libera accounts on meta, and have posted a diff for confirmation at #wikimedia-auth; do you know how long it usually takes? (IRC is not my strong suit.) I'd really appreciate an invitation to the admin channel. Don't know if it has to be real-time; I'm UTC−4/5, but flexible. My status is here. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and sorry if I am not citing my source correctly. Please advise how I can add this new source of the Raleigh Minerva from Aug 10th, 1809? This is an earlier reference than the 1819 newspaper. I also have sources of some handwritten notes in the NC archives from a relative that talks about this and points out the Raleigh Minerva as well. Thank you very much, -mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjohnson362 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)