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 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

The book in question was originally published by Indiana University Press in 2005 (see: https://books.google.com/books?id=kf5_Mo4IS8oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=0253217571+-+Our+Mothers,+Our+Powers,+Our+Texts:+Manifestations+of+%C3%80j%C3%A9+in+Africana+Literature+Blacks+in+the+Diaspora+by+Teresa+N+Washington&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-pP-U5bDhAhWPTN8KHe4FBA0Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=0253217571%20-%20Our%20Mothers%2C%20Our%20Powers%2C%20Our%20Texts%3A%20Manifestations%20of%20%C3%80j%C3%A9%20in%20Africana%20Literature%20Blacks%20in%20the%20Diaspora%20by%20Teresa%20N%20Washington&f=false), and the cited pages reference that edition. The ISBN erroneously referred to the revised edition which was published by Oya's Tornado. The ISBNs and links have since been corrected/updated. OjogbonIjinle ( talk) 06:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@ OjogbonIjinle: no, Ref 35 clearly states Indiana University Press but your link goes to a 2015 edition by Yoya's Tornado. Your publisher and the book you used for the source must match. Just because one version was published by IUP doesn't mean you don't have to be accurate about which book you used as a source. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oversights occur. . . speaking of which, you neglected to include your reference (book/journal, press, page # etc.) for your Ulli Beier quotation. I am trying to update various links now, but *someone* is editing at the same time, preventing me from saving the changes. OjogbonIjinle ( talk) 08:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It was cited after the next sentence, but to make it clearer I've repeated the citation. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Please explain why you have reverted my edit on the entry for the Mark of the Beast. There is no reason that my edit can be considered disruptive. I've read through your list of common reasons for moderation and note that my entry does not qualify. My entry does relate to the possibility that both numbers (666 and 616) are valid considerations for interpreting the text and explains why that is. It's a logical resolution of the fact that both numbers appear in reputable texts. Without this resolution, the page only lists arguments for disagreements. Surely consensus is the objective in light of wikipedia's interest in editorial integrity?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.184.214.168 ( talk) 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I saw your message on my page and I wanted to reply. I am new at this so bare with me! I made a test and I thought I removed what I made. I am sorry if it wasn't erased. I am working on a school project to add paragraphs on the Paracas page. I plan on adding what I've written today. It's part of the Wiki Edit assignment. I won't be changing anything already written just adding. Thank you for the updates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGreen697 ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please address the {{ copyvio-revdel}} request at HAL AMCA? I placed the template five days ago, but no administrator has gotten around to address it yet. Thank you. — Gazoth ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Gazoth: done, if you haven't noticed it already. I have to do up to the last but one edit. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gazoth ( talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi please hide my Ip address: without removing content added if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantom122 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Quantom122:, but next time email Oversight, don't put your IP address on someone's page.

Reliable source?

• Williams, Henry Smith, ed. (1904). "The historians' history of the world".

According to what Wikipedia has on Henry Smith Williams, he was a medical doctor. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Historians' History of the World. So each article should have its own author. Depends on who they are and how it's being used, but I don't like using encyclopedias. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is specifically indicated as the author of chapter V of Volume IX. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)

Outdated, and Williams doesn't seem to have the right credentials. In my opinion, the only situations where Williams could be used is:

1) when we're dealing with other outdated sources written by authors without credentials and/or reputation as "expert"

2) when he's cited by a proper WP:RS

Best practice remains: avoid, remove and replace with a solid WP:RS. - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Kol Khara Ya Akho Asharmutta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:ADC8:A44:84B9:9645 ( talk) 06:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid posting that ED link was probably a bad idea. I don't know this case, but in general the site celebrates trolling and misinformation, even if there is some truth mixed in on occasion, and using it when there's a lawsuit, even one somebody says is unlikely to win, seems too daring at least in terms of BLP. I worry someone could use it as a test-case to introduce worse censorship policy here, because it's less defensible than, say, citing their copy of the NZ shooting video on the article talk page, and there's an outstanding threat to block people if they do that. It might be better to remove it or at least clarify it's only an example of the online trolling and not to be trusted for any facts. Wnt ( talk) 16:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

You were a bit late to the party, Doug, it had already stopped. Rorix the White ( talk) 13:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. Rorix the White ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

On the Five Percent Nation page you removed a citation from a Georgia State University Masters Thesis. Your concluding comment was that either the usage of such a source or the thesis itself (the reference is not specified) constitutes a "fail". Wikipedia states that dissertations and theses may be used as sources and also provides the method for citing them (Please see: < /info/en/?search=Template:Cite_thesis>). Georgia State University is a recognized university capable of awarding degrees. According to Wikipedia, this citation/source is valid. If there is no other criteria to justify the decree of "fail[ure]" and the removal of the source, it appears this reference should be restored. OjogbonIjinle ( talk) 19:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) The existence of a template doesn't mean that a thesis is considered reliable. From WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Unless you have evidence of that "significant scholarly influence" you can't use a master's thesis as a source. -- regentspark ( comment) 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)In general, theses and dissertations are not accepted as sources, no matter how respected the university, or at least are regarded as lesser-quality references. "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available ... , can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." The existence of a template doesn't alter that. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WP's statement which follows: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." The Master's Thesis in question is "Voices of the earth: A phenomenological study of women in the nation of gods and earths" by A.J. Keiler-Bradshaw. The thesis in question is cited by Feminista Jones in the book Reclaiming Our Space (Beacon Press). Keiler-Bradshaw's work is also quoted in other theses and dissertations and is included in a list of "Black Islam Resources." Keiler-Bradshaw's thesis is not the only source used in an in-line citation in WP: it is one of three. But it is not difficult to make the argument that Keiler-Bradshaw's thesis does have significant scholarly influence, as it is cited by post-graduate scholars, an established author, and cited as a source for scholars of "Black Islam". Further, Keiler-Bradshaw's committee members are all specialists in the field of African/African-American Studies. OjogbonIjinle ( talk) 03:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a similar situation as Five Percent Nation. I've finally gotten around to reading through the talk page, and there's comments on there by multiple users for years pointing out the various problems on the page. The big problems on the page are its questionable claims, over-reliance on primary sources, use of buzzwords and promotional language. So there's a broad consensus, however, these users seem somewhat infrequent. And there's a few users who are more dedicated but block any changes being made. Right now I'm posting to various Wikiprojects to see if I can get more people involved into the discussion. I don't think that's gonna go anywhere. I might have to bring it to a noticeboard.

My current discussion: Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ad_and_MEDRS Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Weller, please provide specifics to justify this statement: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. I note that your edit to Attack on Pearl Harbor was reverted for the same reason".

I have edited these pages to correct obvious errors, using reputable references, sources, and citations. You have failed to provide credentials to justify making such an insulting claim.

The edits that I have made have been very carefully researched and crafted to correct errors and to improve readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Returner323617 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Returner323617, what he used is called a template and is not necessarily a custom made message, so don't take it personally. After reading over the edits in question, I do agree with his revert. When making changes to articles such as you did there, make sure to cite sources on claims that can be disputed. Kb03 ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to elaborate on your reasons for removing references citing an article in Inference from Shinichi Mochizuki and Inter-universal Teichmüller theory? I have read the Becker article you mention, and it does make the situation sound alarming, but many important academics write and edit for Inference, so evidently not everyone agrees with Becker. A blanket policy of deleting references to articles solely on the basis that they were published in Inference may be hard to defend. See also "On Inference" by Peter Woit and "Something I wrote…" by David Roberts for some alternative points of view.

The article "Fukugen" wasn't actually cited in the biographical article about Shinichi Mochizuki, so perhaps it didn't need to be there anyway. But in the Inter-universal Teichmüller theory article, it was the only published secondary source written by a professional number theorist. Except for one article published in mathematics journal (ref. 15), every remaining reference is either to an unpublished primary source (blog, personal webpage, preprint server, workshop website), or to a secondary source witten by a science journalist. Incidentally, there was a second reference to "Fukugen" which you did not delete, and a bot has restored the bibliographical reference to Inference. Also, the sentence that was deleted, stating that Fesenko, Yamashita, and Hoshi claim to understand the proof, is not controversial. I don't have a source handy that isn't a blog post, but it can certainly be found in some of the journalist-written pieces. Will Orrick ( talk) 11:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Will Orrick: I take your point, but your link to the David Roberts piece is worrying because it suggests that an author's article might be changed by someone else and then published. Additionally, these are recent concerns, this year. Anhd this recent article, discussed here and here seems even more evidence that this is to be avoided. Feel free to take this to RSN of course. I'm taking it to FTN as it's something people there will be interested in. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Better image: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/queen-of-sheba-edward-slocombe.html Please, can you edit it? Thank you! -- 87.4.239.175 11:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love to but it's copyright so we can't use it. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Then can you find the same but which it's not copyright? -- 87.4.239.175 11:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.239.175 ( talk)

- LouisAragon ( talk) 23:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. - LouisAragon ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied again. - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on the Legend of the Rainbow Warriors talk page. I thought I had written the content I deleted and was just trying to correct myself. It was not until I re-post that i seen it was signed by another user. Corbin or corvin if i remember. anyway I left it alone at that point and was actually wondering about that. My mistake. like i said I thought I had written that I was a Wikipedia administrator, which is not true, thanks for the tip. Oddacon ( talk) 21:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)oddacon

User:Doug Weller, I have added your name to an Arbitration Enforcement appeal, which you can see here, since you are a non-involved Administrator. I hope that I've done nothing amiss in doing so. If you wish not to respond, that is your choice to make. Davidbena ( talk) 01:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone has created an account for a User:Pico. One edit. Room for confusion? PiCo ( talk) 05:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@ PiCo: I don't think there will be a problem, but I've given them a similar username softblock anyway. Doubt they'll be back though. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I am curious about the reliability of this book:

• I maggiori dei Visconti: signori di Milano, Gerolamo Biscaro, Tip. editrice L.F. Cogliati, 1911.

Thanks.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. His article on it.wiki says "Son of Antonio and Giovanna Piloni, in 1880 he obtained a degree in law from the University of Padua and undertook the activity of magistrate first in Treviso, then at the Milan court and finally at the Supreme Court of Cassation . In 1924 he entered the Royal Commission for the reform of the codes , devoting himself in particular to the civil one.As a historian, he devoted himself mainly to local history: first at an artistic level, collaborating with Luigi Bailo ; later to the social and legal fields." Doug Weller talk 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your recent add it to the list of fake news page isn't over a step of boundaries. You claim to have removed a piece of the article as one story does not make someone a fake News website, yet most of the media Outlets that are listed on the page are exactly that. I'm going to fix this, and please do not remove it, as it is a clear form of privilege abuse for the purpose of a personal bias. I'm not going to report you this time, but if you change it again, you will be reported. CoopDEtat19 ( talk) 13:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) You may wish to read WP:RS and WP:V. No reliable sources cited in your edit call BuzzFeed "fake news" and your use of The Daily Caller doesn't give you much credibility - it's an explicitly-partisan outlet dedicated to fluffing Trump. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 13:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "add" anything to the article. I wasn't using any of my privileges, and I've got quite a few, but you are clearly editwarring after multiple warnings going back over a year. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC) @ CoopDEtat19: Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No surprise, this turned out to be a sock. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Made a post on the notice board on the subject.

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Five_Percent_Nation

Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller what am I supposed to do if I feel that I am being stalked by another editor, who is being very disruptive? Davidbena ( talk) 22:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

...or a copycat, is back as user colon HarperSyndrome. Qwirkle ( talk) 18:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC) (an earlier version of this disappeared in the aether; my apologies for any dupes.)

PS: This is the fellow mentioned here. Qwirkle ( talk) 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Qwirkle: sorry to take so long, blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Qwirkle ( talk) 22:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, I give you my solemn word that if you are patient with me and I am not banned from the I/P area, I will greatly improve my conduct and will not seek to contend with other co-editors on this worthy project, even if I disagree with them. I will simply, and calmly, discuss the matter with the other editor, and/or seek intervention from an Administrator if the case seems to me to be a serious infraction of Wikipedia policies. Davidbena ( talk) 14:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

- Donald Albury 00:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like your status has been somewhat elevated, congratulations! See User:Sotuman/thegods. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Doug, Could I draw your attention to the recent actions of Lottolads ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked for a short time at the start of April. They are now introducing incorrect information on the Rockall article, which I have reverted. They also appear to be starting a incorrect article via their Sandbox. It seems, once again, that they are intent on disrupting the encyclopedia. Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@ David J Johnson: I don't know enough about these subjects. Nothing about the BLP and just that several countries claim Rockall. However, this comment is worrying. ANI? I'm also almost at the end of my editing day, watching tv and my watchlist, won't have much time for about 15 hours. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug, could you look at the deletionism of an SPI newbie at Bodaruwitj? Worth blocking? Of course, I can just keep reverting as I build the page, but the chap seems quite fixated.Regards Nishidani ( talk) 12:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: Um, 3rr could be a problem, please be careful. But they've had a final warning so I'll block if this continues - and I know about it! Doug Weller talk 14:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Come to think of it, timely warning about 3R, given my notorious battleground mentality. But I thought what was going on there -virtual blanking replaced by WP:OR, ergo vandalism, hence 3R not applicable. Best Nishidani ( talk) 16:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: I see that someone went ahead and blocked him anyway. I'm too nice sometimes perhaps. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

'Sometimes'?:) Keep well. Nishidani ( talk) 09:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I right in calling this guy (Frantz Grenet) an "archaeologist and historian"? [1]- [2] - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@ LouisAragon: yes. The first link had me wondering as it calls some of the people it lists archaeologists but not him, but the second link is convincing. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - LouisAragon ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, you asked me to discuss censorship by an editor of a factual reference to a book written by the subject (Katherine Zappone). What is there to discuss: this is a clear example of censorship by an activist masquerading as an editor who has been tasked with monitoring Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.250.151 ( talk) 13:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not censorship. Discuss it on the article talk page. Or better yet, don't bother. You're talking nonsense about another editor and failing to follow WP:AGF, Doug Weller talk 18:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not another one! Goodbye wiki.

You have not checked the website of Mr. Colin Smythe, the agent of late Sir Terry Pratchett where his publication with one of OmniScriptum's imprints (Lambert Academic Publishing) is clearly listed - https://colinsmythe.co.uk/terry-pratchett/discworld/books-articles/

This removal is unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaPech ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @DW: Meat, perhaps? —— SerialNumber 54129 12:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fo sure. See also VarisGrin MartaLusena VaKristine KateKalnina. SmartSE ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Smartse and Serial Number 54129: I've blocked her also. There's a big difference between Colin Smythe and some unknown author. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Crikey. More meat than Mattessons  :) thanks both ! —— SerialNumber 54129 12:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You have removed a small interpolation I added to your page. Your reason for doing so is that I did not include a reliable source. I did in fact include a citation - in this case in reference to place-names, namely W. j. Watson's place-names of Ross and Cromarty. As to the brief reference to archaeological finds these are not a matter of opinion but solid finds - references to both digs can be found all over the internet and in newspapers, relating to two major finds in Scottish archaeology.

I find it a sad refelction of the so-called freedom of the internet and especially that of Wikipedia that a page creator can include anything they want regardless of references, citations etc but more often than not they remove any editing done by someone else. My interpolation did not counter anything you'd written so I am at a loss as to why you would remove it especially for such a spurious reason as lack of reference when just such reference was included.

This just goes to re-inforce the idea that Wikipedia is at best an untrustworthy source where contributors remove anything anyone else adds regardless, and at worst a useless resource.

I have studied Norse Scottish history for twenty-years and added only a minor detail. Do you have the humility to re-instate the minor point, or even update your page to include one minor point on a place-name and to include archaeological information more recent than your source - 1998?

That page has had 92 editors. My only edit was today and I've never written any part of the article. Page creators are not allowed to create unsourced articles. The boat burial site mentioned and illustrated in the article is 2011, clearly more recent then 1998 and a lot more recent than your 1904 source. Suggest your edits on the talk page, I'm sorry but I just don't have time make your edits comply with our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where anyone can write whatever they want. I agree that one bit of your contribution had a reference but it needed page numbers to be able to WP:VERIFY it. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why only the native Indians of United States are consider the only native Americans?! If the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, Aymara, etc. are also native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlverichA ( talk • contribs) 6:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't the Aztecs called "First nation"? I don't know. Native Americans includes all those groups, but so far as I know the only indigenous people of the Americas who call themselves Native Americans live in the United States. If I were to guess, I'd say it's because the US is the only country called America. Our article on the name says "Native Americans are often known as Indians or American Indians. The term Native American was introduced in the United States in preference to the older term Indian to distinguish the indigenous peoples of the Americas from the people of India and to avoid negative stereotypes associated with the term Indian. Many indigenous Americans, however, prefer the term American Indian[182] and many tribes include the word Indian in their formal title." Doug Weller talk 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I had a student write on Mobilian Jargon. Fascinating! 209.51.172.142 ( talk) 16:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Your concept is totally wrong, The United States is not the only American nation therefore Native Indians of North, Central, and South America are also native Americans
  • You missed the point. This is not Doug Weller's "concept". Read more carefully. 209.51.172.142 ( talk) 16:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I didn't know about Mobilian. User:AlverichA needs to understand that nomenclature differs in various languages, as does the number of continents - they are also arguing that there is only one American continent. They also don't seem interested in what sources call indigenous people. 16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC) The Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, etc. are also native Americans not only the native Indians of the United States and this is a fact. The term America wasn't named after the United States.

Could you please tell who decided that the whole Western hemisphere should be called the Americas?! If it's original name is America

Naming of the Americas. Please sign your posts. Rorix the White ( talk) 18:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Doug. The section Snoozing (I mean catnapping, nodding off) is different to the others in that what it links are webs that while they have caught my eye to a specific topic of interest for students learning or consideration (and sometimes for my teaching or research interests as well), I have had no sufficient time to review them to be able to whether or not to make a recommendation or some kind of comment or suggestion on them. In any case, what you have said in your remarks has opened my eyes to the very nature of that web and how it is not consistent with Wikipedia essence and goals. So I have just removed it from lists on English and Spanish Wikipedia. I am very grateful to you. Kind regards, -- Jmleonrojas ( talk) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry User:Jmleonrojas I meant to thank you for this. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In regard to your email. Could you clarify what could be a problem on the talk pages? I see some very inflammatory things by Nableezey for instance. American Zionist ( talk) 12:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Acorterion is removing my posts on talk page, will you address what is obvious abuse of admin power. American Zionist ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@ American Zionist: find other sources than FrontPage Magazine and you might be taken seriously. An IP reverted you with the message " We have a policy regarding reliable sources and whether deliberately or not, this user just violated it by posting a link to an outlet owned by a terror-adjacent extremist. User:American Zionist: people can tell when you're ignoring links they've sent you. Had you read that page, you would never have posted a link to that site" Doug Weller talk 18:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

David Horwitiz is a recognized scholar he is legitimate. American Zionist ( talk) 18:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming, arguendo, that you're correct, FrontPage Magazine is not, however, a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

According to whom. Here is another by respected lawyer and scholar Alan Dershowitz. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/alan_dershowitz_talks_about_bds.html American Zionist ( talk) 12:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Doug you are ignoring my points, I put excellent sources on the BDS, that are being rejected by you. Alan Deshowitz is internationally respected. The BDS should be treated like the KKK , you don't let them write their own page. American Zionist ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@ American Zionist: I have no idea why you are posting this here as I haven't edited that article or its talk page other than to remove yet another forum style post of yours. That needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug, I went ahead and blocked them. Taken together with the rest of their editing, the KKK comment shows they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a matter of time in any case, and they've wasted enough of other people's. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was in the middle of collecting diffs. Glad I didn't have to file them. O3000 ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Objective3000: and of course he's appealed. User:Acroterion not surprisingly he thinks you are the problem and mentions you, although he can't spell your username, in his appeal. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an I'm-right-and-everybody-else-is-wrong editor, working from an agenda, there's no cure for that. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models ( WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions ( diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended ( diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

You say that we should not say today in Wikipedia, look at Service Merchandise, this edit here, it says today in the sentence. Thank you!-- 63.209.32.242 ( talk) 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore. I reworded it properly. But I'm sure you find other examples: see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Feel free to remove/reword if you find any, though.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your patience is amazing. Editor2020 ( talk) 00:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Editor2020: a very belated thanks. I try. 😀 Doug Weller talk 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 128.77.80.116 editing/deleting with strong POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me, but I think that something the IP wrote, amid the crap, was overlooked. They had a more than legitimate grievance that mentioning Puin several times was execrably bad practice(what Arabs believe is in good part garbled junk, unlike what we believe was the implicit message of whoever added it four times). Bish restored all of them, I presume just dutifully reverting the chap's havoc. But that only left the POV hammering complained of intact,- even though remarked on - unfixed. No one would care to wipe her arse on any of the criticism pages of the Abrahamic trilogy, but compare Criticism of the Bible (a key Judaic and Christian work) with a paltry 14kb of readable prose, despite a huge amount of scholarly material tearing it apart in silence, and Criticism of the Qur'an at 42 kb, and you see the Judeo-Christian systemic bias at work. I say this as an utter pagan who regards all these foundational texts as interesting only philologically, textually and for the hermeneutic puzzles they create in prolix abundance. The intensity of hostile focus on what Muslims believe in wins hands down. I would suggest in future that folks keep things like this in mind. His complaint could have been fixed in a few spare minutes, making the sanction, just as it was, a little more palatable. Nishidani ( talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

( edit conflict) You put it well, Nishidani: I was indeed just dutifully reverting the chap's havoc. Thank you for going a little deeper than I did. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

You jumped on me with a direct message after I joined and made my first edit, with a very mundane trivial negative accusation.

If you plan on following me permanently from page to page, edit to edit, I’ll have to report this stalking activity. It’s most disturbing as a new member.

Your history suggests you have a very close personal related bias with the Armstrong church and it’s related Wikipedia articles, dating back some time here at Wikipedia.

I can provide you my email, Twitter, FB and IG accounts if you would like to closely follow me on those accounts as well.

@ Expresscoffee: feel free to report me but you might wish to read WP:HOUNDING first. I don't want to upset a new user but my comment was simply pointing out the calling a content change "fixed typos" was not helpful, and if you mean it was a mild statement I agree. It wasn't actually trival, editors are expected to believe that if an edit summary says fixed typos then there's no need to see if it changed content - does that sound reasonable? You could always have asked me why I was reverting you by the way.

I will point out that I wasn't the first person to put a message on your talk page expressing concern. I have absolutely no relationship with the Armstrong church or indeed any denomination opposed to it.

I'm not trying to make your editing experience miserable, I'm simply trying to make sure the articles conform to our guidelines and policy. Where I have failed is not giving you a welcome notice and I've tried to make up for that just now. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, are YOU a Jew (i.e. Jewish people)? Quang, Bùi Huy ( talk) 09:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Bhuyquang1: Color me gobsmacked. What kind of question is that? Doug Weller talk 09:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree with you, but, what does the sentence: I'm referring to your addition of Zionism as an ideology mean? Quang, Bùi Huy ( talk) 10:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an oudated material and yes this theory is still heavily discussed https://www.academia.edu/9562579/Solutrean_hypothesis_genetics_the_mammoth_in_the_room this article date is 2014 so it's not oudated on the solutrean hypotesis page there is only one article more recent saying "A 2015 re-evaluation of the DNA evidence states that "X2a has not been found anywhere in Eurasia, and phylogeography gives us no compelling reason to think it is more likely to come from Europe than from Siberia. Furthermore, analysis of the complete genome of Kennewick Man, who belongs to the most basal lineage of X2a yet identified, gives no indication of recent European ancestry and moves the location of the deepest branch of X2a to the West Coast, consistent with X2a belonging to the same ancestral population as the other founder mitochondrial haplogroups. Nor have any high-resolution studies of genome-wide data from Native American populations yielded any evidence of Pleistocene European ancestry or trans-Atlantic gene flow."" with this article i can say that the theory is still heavily discussed and saying thaht it is irrelevant and with little scientific support is completly subjective and a political position, this theory isn't false like all the other explaining the x2a mtdna haplogoup presence in native american, we need more scientific discoveries to adopt one of the three theory ( trans altaic flow and siberian extinction of x2a, paleo indian or the solutrean hypotesis

Responded on talk page, but this need to be on the talk page of the main article, not an article mentioning it. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Four tildes, not five, Doug. [3] It's probably better you re-sign than me adding some template. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

Done, thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Doug! I keep a DS Notice at the top of my user page where it's easy to see (it's a custom design I borrowed from MPants & made some of my own modifications). It helps eliminate repeated postings of DS Alerts which can be rather frustrating to receive when you frequently edit DS topic areas. Besides, there is also a notice on the article TP and in edit view of the actual article (I believe). So...where is the best venue to present this idea - would it be AE, or ARCA (or somewhere else)? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Atsme: if you start with ARCA and it's the wrong place I'm sure someone will point you to the best venue. It will need ArbCom approval so AE won't work. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir , i have edited Shaykh Al Islam Page which was undo by you , you can check the title is used for Sayyed Muhammad Madni in Today's date , so please update the page as per modern Title Holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQ125 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC) @ RQ125: you deleted most of the page and then added unsourced information, so I can't. You are continuing to add unsourced content and your draft, this needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Could you please have a look at the Mauretania article. There's an edit warrior there who doesn't seem to understand the difference between the region and the province and who's hell bent on removing the part about Christianity being extinguished. They literally butchered the article just to make a point. Best regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

M.Bitton has been edit-warring and also restored a copyright violating paragraph. They accuse me of being hell-bent on removing "Christianity being extinguished" even though I'm not. In the compromises I have attempted, I kept the part about Christianity being extinguished but added another view that it did not. Bitton claims to me on the talk page that Mauretania didn't exist after 7th century so anything talking about existence of Christianity after Arab conquest is irrelevant, in order to keep his claim that it didn't exist even though it would be factually incorrect.

Fact of the matter, Mauretania didn't exist except as a name for a region after 44 AD as the Roman Empire divided it into two provinces and then three provinces. Even the Encyclopaedia Brittanica Bitton used said so: [4]. No matter what compromise I make, they absolutely refuse to cede even an inch. IRGCfan ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug, I want to nominate Names and titles of God in the New Testament for deletion, but Wikipedia's guidelines leave me none the wiser on how to start the process. Can you suggest what I should do? (I anticipate strong opposition from one editor, agreement from others). PiCo ( talk) 10:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@ PiCo: what's your rationale? Twinkle does it automatically by the way. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The rationale is that the article has no rationale - the name of God in the New Testament is God (Theos in Greek), and his title is Lord (kyrios): enough information for exactly one sentence. A user who seems to be affiliated with Divine Name has padded it out to absurd lengths. PiCo ( talk)

@ PiCo:, with great respect, let me express that the fact that you do not agree with the different scholarly points of view does not mean that they are "absurd". Regarding your statement "Irrelevant - this isd about Jesus and the NT", let me tell you that the tetragrammaton hypothesis in the NT is not an obstacle to a trinitarian view. At least 14 scholars who propose the existence of the Name of God in the New Testament can be cited. Someone can quote one that proposes an original Κύριος or θεος in unavailable New Testament manuscripts, and even if there was one, it would be against 14, and with the state of the current erudition, some plausible explanations must be found. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco ( talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd participate in that deletion debate just for the craic. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Can some cite someone who says that "the name of God in the New Testament is God (Theos in Greek)"?. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco ( talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco I really don't want to discuss the article here. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doug, I think I left the topic. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

But I still can't work out how to start the listing process. ::::I anticipate plenty of craic, Roxy, and I'm ready for it. PiCo ( talk) 23:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@ PiCo: I don't know why you don't want to use Twinkle, but if you won't, I'll do it for you. Write a rationale based on its lack of notability and put it here. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [5]. PiCo ( talk) 08:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I left you a response on my User Talk page, but I don't know if Wikipedia automatically gives you a notification, so I'm leaving this here in case it does not. Tym Whittier ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You know your way around WP and its partners much better than I, so I bring this query to you. I have just come across Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC, which begins its article with "We". Doesn't such a personal statement breach WP:NPOV? I don't doubt the great value of the project's work, but do wonder who is monitoring the work of its "Wikipedian in residence", who seems mainly responsible for contributing to that page and supervising the project's alumni. What important fact am I missing? Sweetpool50 ( talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Sweetpool50: First, it is not an article, so WP:NPOV does not apply. Second, museums and cultural archives are exempted from WP:COI. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you put talk page notices on the top of the talk page that Rashida Tlaib is currently under several DS sanction areas. However, I am not sure if you logged it, I didn't check. But more importantly, you didn't place an edit notice on the actual page itself which is required, and I also don't think the page should be under ARBPIA sanction. We shouldn't restrict pages when fewer sanctions can be applied. BLP obviously applies, as does US politics, but I don't see how her entire page should be under ARBPIA subject area. Thanks. In any event, the page requires an edit notice, not just a talk page notice. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Sir Joseph:, "the area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." However the specific sanctions only apply to pages that are "reasonably construed". This may all be revisited this year but no edit notice is required as there are no specific sanctions on the page, and we don't automatically log pages that don't have such sanctions. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Sir Joseph: You should not be commenting on ARBPIA sanctions, since you are topic banned from the area. But for what it's worth, I think Doug got it exactly right here. This is "broadly construed" to be in the topic area, but not "reasonably construed", so only DS are active. Placing a template noting that DS are active requires no logging. The template isn't even required; it's just a courtesy notification. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Doug, since I'm still fairly new I was wondering if you know any editors I can consult with. For example, there's this article about a murder suspect from a notable case. Does that make the suspect notable? Since the only thing this person is famous for is killing a kid, I don't think it meets WP:PERP. Obviously this is one example, but I don't want to assume I'm always right. Is there a place I could consult with fellow editors in cases like this besides the talk page?

Oh and just in case you're curious, this is the article in question: Jos B. Alex.osheter ( talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Alex.osheter: interesting. The Dutch article on the case [6] mentions the suspect but he has no article of his own. That doesn't prove anything though. The place for this issue is WP:BLPN. Be aware that not every post there gets a detailed response. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Doug, Thanks for keeping wikipedia clean. Your revert was on the basis of the quoted scientific paper being published at a Journal (Archeological Discovery) from a company, SCIRP that is blacklisted. However, I can see some serious scholars (professors) publishing at Archeological Discovery. Who decides that overall each and every one of the 200 journals are not trustworthy? Is this worth discussing with the community? -- Batdegroot67 ( talk) 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Bernard

@ Batdegroot67: As reliability is not the default anyway, I think we start with why should we use it as a source? Look at this recently published article. [7] Of course Robert Schoch is well known to be WP:Fringe, but look where both authors are: "Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization, College of General Studies, Boston University." which is affiliate with this place. The other author is an "independent researcher".[https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=83873] Doug Weller talk 16:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) By the way, Scrip.org is on our blacklist so I had to "nowiki" it. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Weller, you told me to source my claims and that's what I did (with a WaPo article). Then you 'sanctioned' me for doing it. Greenwald has described himself as an activist journalist (see the source I provided). And he is best known for his journalism, not being a lawyer, so I disagree with your point on that. He doesn't practice law. Anyway, I thought I was adding value to the page by pointing out an important piece of background information on the source of a quote. Thanks for your attention and I resent your sanctioning me. Ahjotina ( talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019

(UTC)

@ Abjotina: I haven't sanctioned you. I think you misread the alert. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just popped in to do a few things out of the blue. Noticed this, wondered how I and everyone else missed it the last few years it was up, haha. If the user wasn't already indeffed for the last 2 years I'd recommend their edits be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Not sure if it was malicious or if they really had absolutely no clue what they were talking about, but the addition of "the southern shores of the Great Lakes at Western New York and Western Pennsylvania" to an article about the Mississippian culture is about as accurate as saying they were in Arizona. I actually laughed a little when I first spotted it. Though I'd spread the mirth. Anyways, hope you're well and keeping up the good fight. He iro 08:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug, you're mistaken in telling Alex.osheter that ARBPIA doesn't apply to him yet. this AfD he created clearly falls into the discretionary sanctions provisions. More eyes on this editor would be good. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 04:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Tsumikiria: I'm puzzled. I told him "you don't have to worry if you follow the above and WP:AGF (even if others don't)." The "above" was the alert and information about ECP, etc. I can't see how you got the idea I told him it didn't apply to him yet. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, isn't the article's History section pretty good evidence for continued inhabitance? Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Alex.osheter: sorry Alex, it actually isn't. It says things such as "destroyed", that the modern city is near the ancient site (implying that there is a discontinuance), and above all, we need archaeological sources stating that. I found one ancient city that was deserted for centuries before being refounded in the late 19th century. That was one of the oldest but not oldest continually inhabited - same for Jericho. One line in Ashdod is "In 950 BCE Ashdod was destroyed during Pharaoh Siamun's conquest of the region. The city was not rebuilt until at least 815 BCE." The article really needs good sources. By the way, you forgot to mention which source you were unhappy with when you posted to the talk page. I don't think I'll have time tonight to look at it though. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Okay, then could you remove the link that sent me to that page in the first place? Since it's an incorrect statement. I also updated the Talk page, it's just a quick edit. Replace "www" with "archive". Cheers, Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Your oversighter hand has a chilling effect on fixing POV. Compare the wiki entry on Jihad Watch, your incorrect current first sentence ("Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog...") with that of Sourcewatch: "Jihad Watch is an anti-Islamist website and blog." ^[1] The conspiracy is yours - the conspiracy of silencing criticism of Islamism (violent, terrorist political Islam) by calling them hate groups and islamophobic. FYI, Jihad Watch includes Muslim authors. None of its authors endorse hatred of Muslims. Commentators promoting violence on JIhad Watch's open forum are removed. Some of current sources are dubious, partial and disputed. For example, Guardian is a UK left journal and hardly an objective source. As for the broken sentence "Jihad Watch has been described --as a hate group-- by the Southern Poverty Law Center[19][10] and Anti-Defamation League.[20]" The SPLC hate groups mapping is disputed, also in court suits. The SPLC drew hate group lists by political preferences and not by stated criteria.- Yohananw ( talk) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please block this obvious sock of User:Nittin_Das? Thanks. Bennv3771 ( talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Compare [8] vs [9]. Bennv3771 ( talk) 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Doug, (I'm Aṭlas, just losing my pw all the time)

There is an editor with a Single-purpose account, who is removing Morocco/Moroccan from every article he edits. My sock radar is telling me that this is one of Bokpasa's socks. The thing that forced me to say this is that they're sharing the same "anti-morocco" agenda. Just check out his edit history and you'd be amazed about the many times he's using "Removed: X morocco", "Removing Moroccan"...in his edit summaries. But, I don't want to rush. I just wanted to tell you about his behavior. Kind Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, are you here? - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings gentlemen, allow me to defend myself. First of all , no idea who this "Bokpasa" guy is so your "sock radar " is kinda off kiddo. Regarding my removal of "Morocco" from any article prior to 1956 is simple : this country did not exist at the time and for a person who calls himself a rationalist , you aren't doing too well. Notice that I often replace "Morocco" with its historical name " AL maghreb- al Aqsa". The only times I don't is regarding stuff like the Marinids who are not Moroccan. So added a modern country's name to a past entity is somewhat of an "appropriation" don't you think ? Now if you simply responded to the message I left you on your talk page , we would be here now would we. And again, rather than reverting my edits for no reason , talk to me. You have not yet attempted doing so. Alg01 ( talk) 22:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So your pov is more reliable than the Encyclopaedia of islam, The Cambridge History of Africa, A History of Islamic Societies, etc. ? When these books are plainly stating that a dynasty is Moroccan or a person is Moroccan. They're just lying? The authors in my edit of Kingdom of Tlemcen, are all lying? You're more specialised in islamic history than "Chantal de La Véronne" who asserted in the Encyclopaedia of islam, that Wattasids were a Moroccan dynasty? - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 22:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question ? Are the people you cited more experienced than the Abd AL Rahman and Yahia Ibn Khaldun  ? Al-Maqquri ? Al-Tenesi ? I'm not pushing any POV , simply citing what is written. Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco...leaving me to suppose they have a personal bias. Especially if they're French , France has worked it's ass off to destroy Algerian history after their humiliation in 62. Next thing you'll tell me is that B.Lugan is a respectable writer. What a joke. Putting "Moroccan" infront of berber dynasties like the Almoravids ,Almohads , Marinids, when authors that LIVED those events clearly state their ethnicity not being native to what is now Morocco. Seems to me that you're the one pushing a POV. Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis. I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country. Can you say the same ? Nope. Without biased historians , what is Morocco's history do tell me? Alg01 ( talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the people you cited more experienced than the Abd AL Rahman and Yahia Ibn Khaldun  ? Al-Maqquri ? Al-Tenesi ?

You know that these are primary sources, and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

I'm not pushing any POV , simply citing what is written.

Actually you are pushing a pov and you're just refusing to admit it.

Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco...

So, what? "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

Especially if they're French , France has worked it's ass off to destroy Algerian history after their humiliation in 62.

That's not my business or wikipedia's business. It's your own pov. French, Turk, Spanish, English....It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is their Reliability.

Next thing you'll tell me is that B.Lugan is a respectable writer. What a joke.

That's a straw man fallacy. I never used any of Bernard Lugan's works in wikipedia, and I don't consider his works reliable.

Putting "Moroccan" infront of berber dynasties like the Almoravids ,Almohads , Marinids, when authors that LIVED those events clearly state their ethnicity not being native to what is now Morocco.

This reflects your non-neutral pov.

Seems to me that you're the one pushing a POV.

Tu quoque fallacy

Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis.

Your biased and non-neutral pov. Thanks for showing your true colors.

I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country.

you're showing your nationalist agenda. - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Oh wow you've got me oh noooo" Sarcastic enough ? If me refusing to put "Morocco/Moroccan" , a modern entity ,in front of past countries makes me biased then so be it. The only pov i'm pushing is that of the book i'm reading - it seems to me that adding a modern nationality in front of a past country IS pov pushing but alright. Also , I don't directly read from those books , I do use secondary sources that eventually translate and give a sense to what the author is saying -verify it yourself. -And I talked about B.Lugan because 1, he isn't a reliable source and you can read all about his failure online , 2/ because he is often used by Moroccans to actually support their agenda and 3/ He's actually because used as source at least once in the following; Almoravid's, Almohads,Marinids , Wattasids. Anyways , I don't have all day to chat with you , I have done nothing wrong. Everything I add is used from a reliable source. What bothers you is me removing a nationality from a dynasty that doesn't belong to said country. It's called histical appropriation and i doubt it goes with wikipedia's guidlines. Next time , respond to you talk page so that we can talk it out like civilized human beings rather than complaining to an administrator.

Alg01 (
talk) 09:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you recently blocked EpiclyFourYearsOld. Mr.McGurhgan appears to have similar theories. Certes ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Certes: done and thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I have recently received a message that some of my posts on talk pages were removed, but it's not clear to me why. The message notes there is nothing wrong with what I did, but my posts were removed nonetheless, so I thought I'd ask you for clarification if it's not too much of a hassle. Nikolaneberemed ( talk) 09:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My bad, it was an old message. Sorry for the hassle. Nikolaneberemed ( talk) 10:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey you blocked 2605:6000:170c:4179:cde3:2081:6dc7:7d98. They are continuing their vandalism by hopping over to a new IP. This can be seen at David Starr (wrestler). Requesting that you can lock the page since RFPP can usually take a few hours. StaticVapor message me! 06:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@ STATicVapor: Another Admin protected, I've blocked the /64 range. [10]. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sir, appreciate you! StaticVapor message me! 17:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Still persisting it seems... — Paleo Neonate – 03:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style you have reverted an edit. Wikipedia has developed policies and guides which may assist your future edits. It is recommended that when you find an edit you do not agree with that you consider rewording rather than reverting an edit, and if your considered wish is to revert the edit that you provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Please read Wikipedia:Reverting for further assistance. Thank you. Daeron ( talk) 14:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @ Daeron: This is an abusive post. If you want to argue in favor of the change you introduced to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, you should do as Doug said: discuss it on the guideline's Talk page, not leave absurd canned warnings that don't apply to the user who reverted you.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbb23: So are you stalking Doug or me? You must be monitoring a truly stunning number of pages, and perhaps you should ask yourself why you're trying to inject ire into Wiki pages. I for one perfer a more civil tone which is why I prefer polite postings as Doug also seems to prefer. Daeron ( talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Daeron: he watched my talk page. But insulting an experienced editor the way you did above is a bad idea. I reverted you with an edit summary reading "Not an improvement IMHO, please take this to the talk page" and instead of doing that you template me. You also ignored the message on the page saying " Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." That was a substantive edit with both content and grammar issues. I have no idea why you used the word "garrulous" which means "talkative, loquacious, voluble, verbose, long-winded, chatty, chattery, chattering, gossipy, gossiping, babbling, blathering, prattling, prating, jabbering, etc" Doug Weller talk 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Daeron: A lot of us watch each others talk pages. It is an old and respected custom on Wikipedia, and I am surprised that, as long as you have been around on Wikipeida, you are not aware of it. In fact, for long periods of time I have had my preferences set to automatically add any page I edit to my watchlist, which means I have a lot of user pages/talk pages on my watchlist. - Donald Albury 19:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, could you do a revdel on Challenger Deep to hide the pornographic image added in this edit - thanks. Mikenorton ( talk) 16:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mikenorton ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Mikenorton: no problem. I blocked the account, anyone who starts like that is unlikely to be serious about editing. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Doug Weller, I know you do a fair bit of stuff around WP:FRINGE theories, would it be possible to get your take on this discussion about Ricardo Duchesne? The upshot of the discussion is: an editor is saying it's okay to cite Duchesne's papers in outlets like Occidental Quarterly because the fringe policy essentially doesn't apply to the pages of fringe authors. Thanks! Nblund ^talk 22:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, on the page "Mica Jovanovic", you misunderstood the correction and were probably not informed about the regulations. Equivalent means just "equivalent" but it does not mean to have a power to be used in a foreign country without original qualification. Would you please examine my comment below, consider putting back my changes and remove your warning addressed to me. One of the "Professors" was senior lecturer in UK. Radeljic was Senior lecturer in UK. The other were not, but they also claimed to be "Professors". Yet even if some title may be equivalent, this does not mean it could be used publically in other country and the law forbids to use the titles that are not recognised by some official body (University or similar) of the country where they are used. For example, in Germany:

Using foreign university degrees, titles, or positions in Berlin is regulated in Sec. 34a of the Berlin Higher Education Act (Berliner Hochschulgesetz, BerlHG). It is prohibited to use a degree, title, or position in a way that deviates from the provisions in Sec. 34a BerlHG and can even have criminal consequences (Sec. 132a German Criminal Code, StGB). University degrees and titles that were purchased may not be used. According to Sec. 34a(1) BerlHG, a foreign university degree, title, or position may be used regularly • only in the original form, that is, precisely the form in which it was awarded, • with the inclusion of the university that awarded the degree (known as the “origin information”). Reference: Senatskanzlei Berlin, Berliner Rathaus, Jüdenstr. 1, 10178 Berlin: https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/en/university-studies/artikel.711552.en.php

In EU the rules are similar: "If your profession is regulated in the EU country where you want to practice, you may need to apply to get your professional qualification recognized there." (reference: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qualifications/regulated-professions/index_en.htm) Sorbonneparis ( talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Sorbonneparis: I don't have time tonight to respond. It would be useful if you showed me where they "falsely" claimed to be professors. In any case Wikipedia cannot say that any of "the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic." in its own voice. I don't know what qualifies Pavlovic to even make such comments, but these are very serious allegations and we must have much more than a paper on Research.Gate to represent Pavlovic. I'm speaking as someone with over 200,000 edits here and . Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.

I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eavivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)" IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/

"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)" IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/

"Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."

In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu. IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/ ____________________________________________________

Who is DR: PAVLOVIC: Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage or here https://www.academia.edu/23804137/Nasilje_nad_Filozofijom_autori_D._Pavlovi%C4%87_i_S._%C5%BDunji%C4%87_-_Full_text_PDF_from_2016_in_Serbian

The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English

Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861

Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis ( talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sorbonneparis I think this needs to be discussed at our BLP noticeboard, would you like to just copy this to WP:BLPN? Doug Weller talk 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But: My intervention is based on Dr. Pavlovic book Ethics of scientific text: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861 It appears that Dr. Pavlovic is serious scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lpBAhP0AAAAJ&hl=en

What concerns your argument, let me repeat: The article on Wikipedia only describes and does not make any particular claim about truth or falsehood of the exposed facts. Some facts are "against" Mica Jovanovic (main article), the other facts are in defence of Mica Jovanovic (addition of mine). The first claims seem to me to be false (and as such may be defamatory) since Mr. Jovanovic was accused of misrepresentation - to have claimed to possess a PhD from LSE. Apparently he did not claim this at all (as Pavlovic demonstrated) but only to have defended a thesis at LSE (odbranio je = defended it, see below). This was also stated by the Professor Wood who was even cited in the accusatory article! http://www.istinomer.rs/stav/analize/ovako-je-govorio-mica-jovanovic/

The second claim seems to me to be right, because the accusatory(s) of Mr. Jovanovic falsely represented their titles in Serbia. Their titles could have been equivalent to the claimed titles in Serbia, but they were not officially recognised as such, so they formally misrepresented their titles in Serbia (see above). Professor Wood claims that Dr. M. Jovanovic presented his thesis (see below).( Most probably he was demanded to introduce some amendments - I guess).

Therefore the accusations were in fact not stating the trut so they were potentially difamatory. My citing the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are neutral, but the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are obviously true (the British Doctors obviously misrepresented their titles in Serbia). I would be grateful if you would examine the case again, remove warning on my TALK and put back my text in the article on Mica Jovanovic. You may remove this comment of course. Sorbonneparis ( talk) 12:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much interest you have in languages, but I was led through an edit on Taino to Modern Eyeri, which appears to be a modern attempt to revive Kalinga. The sourcing in the article bothers me. Most of the references seem to be to books on the history of the Taino with no connection to any modern revival of a language, but some references are to off-line books in Spanish and French, which I don't have access to. I did remove one reference to a Wikipedia article, which, as it happens, doesn't mention Eyeri. I am uncomfortable with my inability to verify the contents. I have asked about this over at Wikiproject Languages, but I don't know if anyone there can help. It does look like it is connected to the modern Taino survival/revival movement. So, if you have time and the interest, I would be interested in what you think. - Donald Albury 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Donald Albury: I don't have a lot of interest or expertise in languages I'm afraid, sorry. And right now I'm struggling to understand the complaint above! Doug Weller talk 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway. - Donald Albury 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think User:Kwamikagami would be a good bet for languages. I also saw the recent language problem mentioned above and was wondering about it. He iro 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a single source for the claim of a "Modern Eyeri" language. All the refs are for peripheral info that duplicates other articles. I suspect that this is either a hoax, wishful thinking or bullshit (in the formal sense of saying whatever sounds good with disregard for whether it has any connection to reality). Perhaps someone has claimed to have revived it, but a personal project or a cultural club is not a language. I'm going to rd it to Igneri. I suggest the rd should probably be deleted, unless there's some evidence I've overlooked that it actually exists? — kwami ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Kwamikagami: Per this blog/forum post, it looks like a personal project, which I elsewhere called an "invented language". Thanks for dealing with that, and apologies to Doug for taking up space on his talk page. - Donald Albury 11:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Donald Albury: not a problem, and thanks to Kwamikagami. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The writer of that article made edits on similar topics elsewhere, some of which seem legit, some not, and some I can't tell. (Like claiming Colin Powell is Arawakan, again with no ref, at Yamaye.) I wonder whether the 'inventor' of the language speaks Garifuna, or if it's just based on dictionaries. — kwami ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim seems to be that he spent years learning Garifuna, but there is no indication he lived with them. I cannot find any other mention in Google of the either the inventor or the man he learned Garifuna from. It looks like a pretty obscure corner of the Arawakan revival. - Donald Albury 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as you are in the CAT:REVDEL I wonder if you could hide this edit summary. Having lost two family members to Alzheimer's, the assumptions in the edit are not only completely wrong, but I find them personally very hurtful. Also, the edit summary accuses me of edit warring, which is not true. Thanks for your help - Epinoia ( talk) 17:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Epinoia: I sympathise entirely but I don't see it was falling under the criteria at WP:CFRD, even the second one. It's a potentially reasonable argument and the accusation against you would definitely not qualify. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

- ok, thanks - Epinoia ( talk) 19:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note, in case it's important, I noticed edits at Trump derangement syndrome that I think are from the editor who was involved here. Unsure if a proper cleanstart or not, etc... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Search this link in google

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QVM1FHzamSg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxKaia1YIA&t=1008s

Black tusk division ( talk) 10:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I recall you having familiarity with issues relating to predatory publishers. There are some at Wilfred Reilly. What is the procedure for handling them? Please note that the article has been raised at BLPN by me and an anon (separate sections) and that there is some stuff on the article talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 08:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

28 of these 29 messages belong on the article or other Wikipedia talk pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ Doug Weller: Allow me to restate my concern for The Exodus article and its sourcing. There is a claim, which is frequently repeated throughout the article, that there is a "universal consensus" among scholars that The Exodus story is purely mythological and has no historical basis. The citations given for that claim are very misleading. In the sources themselves, the authors make the claim that there is a consensus on the matter, but do not cite any evidence to back that claim. The response I have been getting is "Well, if they are a scholar, that means all of their claims should be taken at face-value. Intelligent scholars have no reason to actually do research and cite scientific surveys or polls. Their word is Gospel. We should just believe everything they say." There are many Biblical scholars and historians who believe that The Exodus may have actually occurred in real life. If I were to cite a paper by a religious scholar that says "All smart people agree that God exists. All scholars agree that Christianity is the one true religion", that would immediately be taken down. Citing such an article would draw a lot of criticism from other Wikipedia editors, especially from the more anti-theistic types. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 02:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC) My point is that it's entirely possible for some scholarly sources to be biased. Just like there are many religious scholars who have published biased works that favor Christianity, there are anti-theistic scholars who have published biased works that favor atheism and secularism. Do you see why calling a source reliable just because it was written by a person of authority does not necessarily mean that it's a good source? Jgriffy98 ( talk) 02:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC) The claim being made is that there is a "universal consensus" among scholars on The Exodus. That being said, Wikipedia defines "reliable sources" very differently from how the academic community defines it. The response I have been receiving is "Wikipedia says it's okay to cite biased sources, as long as they were written by smart people. We have to obey the flawed definition of 'reliable source' that Wikipedia gives us." Jgriffy98 ( talk) 02:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC) "Same reason as before, we don't expect surveys, etc. although we could attribute it" I don't really care what "we" thinks. I am not obligated to follow the rules that "we" decides upon. You are citing misinformation. You are citing an unreliable source. Wikipedia's policy that these qualify as reliable sources is factually incorrect. Please stop citing misinformation and pushing an ideological narrative. Again, Wikipedia's standard for what constitutes a "reliable source" is incorrect, and it only serves to mislead people who visit the website. It is not right for you to justify the spread of misinformation with an incorrect notion of what constitutes truth, just because of a bogus policy guideline that is only in place to be used as a pathetic justification. I find it very ironic that you are citing sources from the academic community (which you claim to be "reliable"), but are using a completely different definition for "truth" and "reliability" than the academic community uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgriffy98 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: You have to obey our WP:RULES, like any other Wikipedia editor. You have assented to follow our rules by assenting to the Terms of Use. So your choice is: obey our WP:RULES or get blocked and eventually banned. I am telling it as it is. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Let's stick to one page to have a discussion. This one will do. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 00:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: You have to obey the rules of Wikipedia because Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH, it is the private property of Wikimedia Foundation and the community decides what is allowed. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Do you work for Wikipedia? Why are you spreading misinformation and anti-religious narratives? Jgriffy98 ( talk) 00:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: We are biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We try to tell it as Ivy Plus tells it. That's all. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Why are you dodging me? I have raised several concerns and have given you reasons for why the citations on the Exodus article are misleading. I have given you reasons why the article is biased in favor of an anti-religious narrative. Please address some of these criticisms and stop sending me policy guidelines. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 00:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: That we are biased for Ivy Plus and WP:CHOPSY is not part of WP:PAGs, but it is a wisdom learned the hard way. The difference is that Ivy Plus keep people like you out of their faculties, or at least contained where their biblical literalism does no damage to science/scholarship. So, yes, it is true, we are quite biased for mainstream Bible scholars. As a fundamentalist said, "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." Wikipedia does not pander to piety. Neither does that Ivy Plus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) You have completely demonstrated your idiocy and ignorance. Why do you continue to post in such a robotic and formal tone? You clearly are not very intelligent and have absolutely no interest in the truth, so please cut the act. You're not fooling anybody. You don't work for Wikipedia. You do not use facts. "People like you" That is such an ignorant statement to make. You don't even know if I'm religious or not. What you just said was nothing but straw men and ignorant assumptions about a person you don't even know. Where is your evidence that I am doing this out of "piety"? Jgriffy98 ( talk) 00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: For me truth is what WP:CHOPSY says it's true. As simple as that. If you are not an evangelical/fundamentalist, then you do your best to sound like one. Since that's generally the people who object that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL in respect to religion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC) C'mon, Jgriffy98 and Tgeorgescu, I'm pretty sure that Doug Weller would not appreciate a fight breaking out on his talk page before he has had a chance to address Jgriffy98's initial query. Can you retreat to opposing corners until he has returned and is able to respond to all of this? Remember, comment on the contribution, not the contributors. And cool it with the personal attacks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu: I am not an evangelical/fundamentalist, and do not appreciate being called out as one. Saying things like "Ivy Plus keep people like you out of their faculties" displays an extremely high level of ignorance. I have not said a single thing that would imply that I have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, or any other holy books. I would very much be interested in discussing why I think the citations on the Exodus article are misleading. There has been a lot of ad hominem thrown around, but we should proceed with a little more civility. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 01:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jgriffy98: Forget about Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press and Princeton University Press, which are among the most reputable academic publishers. Do you think that Augsburg Fortress Publishers, Eerdmans, Westminster John Knox, Society of Biblical Literature, Paulist Press, Eisenbrauns, etc., are anti-theistic? Why? Also, secularism isn't atheism. Secularism is not theocracy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu: I didn't forget, but apparently you did. None of the institutions you listed are mentioned in the article's citations (at least the one's that I'm referring to). You're literately just name-dropping academic institutions to prove a point. Do you feel smart yet? Jgriffy98 ( talk) 02:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu: Also, I never claimed that "secularism is atheism". But thank you for putting words in my mouth. I said secularism AND atheism. I never said they are one in the same. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 03:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification and the feedback of my contributions. Nathan Annick ( talk) 19:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

Hi, Doug, I'd like some advice on the latest addition to Between Scylla and Charibdis. I suspect the insertion is offtopic and only there to score political points; I'm sure too that there's a guideline somewhere about such behaviour. It was invoked to delete references during the Trump campaign, I seem to remember. Can you jog my memory, or even go to the page and invoke it. That at least would point towards a consensus on the matter. Thanks, Sweetpool50 ( talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe has now stepped in with the required guideline. Thanks if you tipped him off. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 13:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

{Not unless he saw it here. Sorry I didn't remember to respond. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Sweetpool50: Doug Weller talk 17:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the block on Taskcubed [11], the user returned as Laidspine [12]. Editing the same articles and exact edit his other sock made [13] [14] He is also editing 1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War which is his favorite article, his sock activity goes back to atleast april of 2018 on that article [15] 105.107.13.84 ( talk) 22:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Too far back for CU but I agree, so blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as a relatively new user who encountered you here, I just wanted to say that I think you've struck an excellent tone over at the current mess, and I've found your comments very helpful to understand both sides of the situation. Thank you, GreyGreenWhy ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's very kind of you to say that. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Doug. I am not assuming anything. I am asking an editor at whom his comments are directed, as they seem like strawman arguments, which are not conducive to productive discussion. Somewhat ironically I am objecting to his assumptions about his imaginary opponents. The ball is with him to explain who he is addressing, scholar or editor. Best. Essentially Dave ( talk) 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Essentially Dave: yes, you are not assuming anything, but we expect editors to assuem good faith. Particularly if you are a new editor discussing something with someone who probably knows a lot more about our policies and guidelines than you do. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Or not... — Paleo Neonate – 15:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, another one of the disgustingly bigoted Mikemikev's socks. Thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You originally blocked this user on the basis of 'not being here to build an encyclopedia' then unblocked. I've had to make a whole much of reverts and respond (as have other editors) to obscure and esoterica talk page requests. It is possible that I'm being unfair - is there any chance you would be prepared to take a look? ----- Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Snowded you seem a bit protective of philosophy article updates in these changing modern times...good luck and thanks Arnlodg ( talk) 15:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, you may remember my December 2018 proposal to replace the "Consensus Required" sanction with the BRD sanction. [16] The proposal ended up being mostly moot because of the change in rules that you proposed to ArbCom, and I took it upon myself to remove the CR sanction from all the articles that User:Coffee had added it to, replacing the sanction at most of those articles with the BRD sanction. The WP:AN thread itself went to archive without a close, though I don't think there would have been a strong enough consensus to override discretionary sanctions placed by multiple admins. Anyway I've come across 5 articles that still have a Consensus Required sanction placed by you, and I was wondering if you would be open to modifying or removing that sanction. The articles are:

• David Malpass
• Executive Order 13768
• Myron Ebell
• National Policy Institute
• Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

If you want to make a change but are too busy to fiddle with the templates I can do it on your behalf with your permission. ~ Awilley ( talk) 03:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Awilley: please do, but please don't add BRD. I really don't like it, perhaps because when editing fringe articles it just doesn't work, ditto sometimes BLPs. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the 11 pings. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to remember why, but this user's page was already on my watchlist before the welcome... — Paleo Neonate – 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will revert to you in due time after I gather all the answers to your questions/rebuttals. Best regards, Alan Charky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancharky ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Isabekian ( talk) 16:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Thpeeni and MOS:ERA. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello editor you tagged me for copyright violation - very sorry about that, I certainly had no intentions of violating anything - before I was able to look at it, however, the note was gone. Im curious what it is I did wrong so that I may not do it again.  Everything I write I write myself, I don't plagiariase anything, so I'm thinking it must have been a photo? I uploaded a photo of a company under the assumption that educational use for purposes like this is permitted, but I can understand if thst is the issue. Let me know.   Canlawtictoc ( talk) 18:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14, 2019 - very much appreciated your explanation, many thanks, and sorry about that. The poem should not be in copyright as more than 20 years have passed, but perhaps this is the case only in Canada. Best to you. Canlawtictoc ( talk) 23:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Canlawtictoc: sorry, I meant to get back to you. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, and if you can't make sense of that ask on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug--need a quick favor from an admin. Can you please move User:Loop of Jade to User:Watsherm/Loop of Jade, deleting the previous version? The student moved it incorrectly, and we need to preserve the history. Thank you so much! Dr Aaij ( talk) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Dr Aaij: Doug Weller talk 16:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You might have VERY little familiarity with her music/recordings during breaks, but in case you get confused subject is a British singer/songwriter of Albanian descent known for her contralto voice and such songs as New Rules, Be the One, IDGAC (which is an acronym for I don't give a crap since original title ends with a four letter expletive), One Kiss with Calvin Harris, etc...

And to clarify was she really a model to the likes of the Kardashian sisters before becoming the aforementioned profession? Had done this to her talk page about ethnicity being included in the lead which isn't allowed.

For the 411 I'm trying my best not to joke around here Monsieur Weller but some male expansion artist from the same country painted a picture of Dib Membrane and his Canadian James Isaac Neutron-looking counterpart getting blown up with crimson red aid pumps by their enemies a certain green Irken and some lavender feline-type of monstrosity. And it was made on her 20 birthday! See for yourself and please reply. [ 1]

Au revoir,

67.81.163.178 ( talk) 20:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, how should I know? Why are you asking me? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Doug, the current info on The Master's Semiary wikipedia page is significantly outdated (and largely inaccurate) and needs to be updated. My attempts earlier today to remove outdated information were reverted. With your permission, I would like to make a second attempt at updating this wikipedia entry. Regarding the probation status for The Master's Seminary, it is not inaccurate to state that the institution is currently accredited by WASC, since institutions remain fully accredited even during the probation process. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DidymustheBlind ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ DidymustheBlind: it's accurate but it doesn't tell the full story so it's also misleading. We need to show the context. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My content addition of the diagram of symmetry (added several months ago) was removed alongside a new addition I made. That was ad-hominem attack. I prefer the entry to be deleted or completely sceptical rather than being mutilated by sceptical editors on no solid grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested. [17] [18] 46.233.77.54 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Mikemikev is pathetic - how can you get banned from Metapedia for being too extreme a hater? The funny thing is that I have rarely edited the article and wasn't involved with the IP until I reverted their talk page post saying that it was "Basically a rant and attack on other editors by an IP now blocked twice for editwarring" - of course Mikemikev didn't mention that. I see that the person behind the IP is pretty much a kook. [19] Doug Weller talk 11:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Soumya-8974 ( talk · contribs) seems to be making edits to Template:Infobox unit/doc, contrary to consensus, and has only reverted those parts of his edit which I have shown specifically violate consensus, but is continuing to make edits which are just wrong, but not contrary to consensus because the page isn't watched very well. If you agree, I think a warning from an admin might help. He seems to be ignoring 3 separate level-2 warnings I've posted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned that page here. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Confused by your edit here where you added "ap" into the text? Previous AD to CE change in edit just before yours was editor fixing their own error in their own edit just before that.

Also, glad to know I'm "forgiven" for suggesting an editor research the subject of an article before they edit it willy nilly, and then edit war over their erroneous assumptions. I saw your posts and decided not interacting with them, as long as they were no longer editing the article, was probably a better idea than trying to engage them further. I pointed them to a paper discussing the subject by a well known archaeologist in the field, but with it being summarily dismissed as "fake news" I didn't see much of a point with me arguing with them. Especially considering their edit summaries when reverting on the article, lol. Hope you're well, He iro 16:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've no idea why I did that or misread the edit, but I'm struggling to come to terms that it's probably the end of the line with my 16 1/2 year old miniature poodle. Kidney failure and dementia, I'm being told by my family it's time. Good call ignoring that editor. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I figured it might be a momentary lapse, but wasn't sure if the "ap" was supposed to be part of a bigger code snippet that had gotten lost and I didn't want to revert you without figuring out if I was missing something first. Sorry to hear about your poodle :-( He iro 19:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to read about that too. My current pet is now a 12 years old cat and still okay, but I've lost a few animals before him. I of course still remember and miss them from time to time... — Paleo Neonate – 00:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsure as to the disposition of your messages on my talk page, but I've gone ahead and deleted them. In the future, if there is an issue, please let me know versus leaving a vague spam message, thank you for your understanding in this matter RTShadow ( talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts are anything but "vague spam messages", they are vital information about sanctions regimes set by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee in topic areas where the community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing. Because many editors will not be aware of these sanctions the Committee decided that editors would not be liable to sanctions unless they have received an alert. Now that you have received an alert you should have enough information to avoid being blocked, topic banned or completely banned for breaking them. Deleting them is fine, it means that you have read them and of course they still appear in your talk page history. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate at least the effort, the problem is that it appears all three of the "discretionary sanctions alerts" are based on one page, and if that is the case, why are three of them needed? And based on what, the "talk" page? The reason I see them as little more than spam is that they don't directly reflect even the page that is being discussed, unless I'm missing something there? I don't spend a lot of time here, my work is mostly within automobiles, so you'll have to forgive my naivety on certain things I see. If your alerts on my page in any way indicate some sort of need to sanction me, in any way, I'd like to know what for. I've always felt the talk pages were a place to bring up constructive discussion to present a position, I didn't change any page, but I most certainly did show a glaring double standard. Because that double standard goes against the political viewpoints of a lot of the editors, that puts a big target on my back apparently. That's also a double standard. I'd love to believe your efforts are unbiased, but given the last 12 months and what I'm seeing is happening on Wikipedia, that's a tough one to believe. Perhaps you can convince me differently. RTShadow ( talk) 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You have yet to discredit the article of which I put on the Nazi gun control page, no one has discredit it, only removed it. They have faced no repercussions. I thought there was a system to go along with Wikipedia not just a I’m more powerful than you so I do what I want system. But I guess I was wrong for thinking that this was a better site than what it actually is. The national review article is out there and no one has discredited yet so I don’t know why it can’t be used other than for political reasons, but whatever silence those who disagree with you like the big man you are. (Compliment ;) ) Hopscootchica ( talk) 23:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Try and remember that we assume good faith here. There might be a reason that it was being used or it might have changed. I'd plead the case on the article talk page, no matter how "big" an editor is we all bow to consensus. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I checked out of curiosity from your comments on that page having POV issues and seriously? They cite Radio Free America? As if that's any way relevant? WTF?!? 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a couple of links during a quick google search which mention that Ravi Shankar designed/came up with it.

1. Yogapedia
2. Sulabh Swachh Bharat

Seems like a fact that it's a core part of his Art of Living program. Do you think these can be used on the article?

223.237.218.231 ( talk) 08:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can't see an author for the Yogapedia article, and the website doesn't seem independent on him. But you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as editors there are more likely to know about these sources. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would hope you gave the same warning to the people that were deleting my edit, especially since they were deleting it without debunking it (they can not) and without talking about it at all. Hopscootchica ( talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have (once again) reverted my edit on the Modern gold dinar page. The source I provided for my edit was arguably "unreliable" by set standards, however, that was the single most reliable source that was available which included a New Straits Times article that explicitly mentioned that the Kelantanese dinar is illegal, therefore I am here to argue that for that reason, an exception ought to be made. Other sources used on the Kelantanese dinar page are either permanently dead (from the same newspaper) or are from Web Archive which I can't access. Sisuvia ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Arguments for why something which has been challenged should be included in an article need to be made on the talk page of the article to see if there is a consensus to do so. - Donald Albury 13:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

So what's up now Doug ??? The entry on Lorence G. Collins has been reverted to a ridiculous stub I notice ! To me that is savage sabotage pure I'm afraid. Rudolf Pohl ( talk) 15:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Rudolf Pohl: you need to discuss this at the article's talk page. Or WP:FTN where I raised the issue. Somewhere where others can see the discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I accept your removal of the picture. Yet you should be more polite, I think. It's my opinion. -- LLcentury ( talk) 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

You are doing a great job and keep up your work as like you do now.

I am just contacting you to help me review the article which is recently published by me - /info/en/?search=Neil_J_C_Franklin

Kindly review this article and bare with me If i did any mistakes in this. Feel free to share your insights and dont hesitate to remove any content from this article if it is not relevant or if you feel its promotional.

Looking forward to hear from you on this. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmdinesh22 ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice but I am already aware of the topic areas that are under DS. I certainly hope the attempts I've seen to conflate my work at the WSJ with that of climate deniers will cease. My focus is on getting the article right, not advocating for or against the inevitable. Climate changes and other areas of concern that have a political element must be presented accurately, from a NPOV, and must be cited to multiple high quality RS. Opinions should not be stated as fact in WikiVoice. I would certainly appreciate it if more administrators would support my efforts to discuss these issues on the TP of conflicted articles so that we can achieve accuracy and improve the articles. Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Atsme but I couldn't see any sign that you'd had an alert in the last 12 months. What did I miss? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

( edit conflict) No need to apologize, Doug. I was just noting to you that, as a responsible editor, I see to it that I am aware of all the topics under DS before I edit anything controversial. I realize posting the notice is part of ArbCom's maze of bureaucracy, which reminds me, if you get a chance, take a look at the following proposal over at ARCA: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: DS Awareness and alerts - it's a time saver, if nothing else, and we have volunteers willing to do what's needed to get it done. It just needs formal approval. One last thought, you might want to note the DS on the TP of The Wall Street Journal and also in edit view for the benefit of those editors (and admins) who may not be aware. I hesitate to advise anyone on their TP because it tends to irritate (as you know) because such notices are typically posted or instigated by the opposition. Thanks! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) You missed the big sign at the top of the page. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Ain't that awareness-disclaimer only about APOL? Missing something? ∯WBG ^converse 16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read that first. Just AP. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, right. I thought it was about all DS, sorry. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC).

Thx, Bish - sorry for the ec - I'll add a host of others. Hopefully more admins will participate in the proposal at ARCA. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Atsme: add others? I'm confused. As you know, you either have to have a yearly alert or show that you are aware according to the criteria at WP:DS#Awareness and alerts. Of course if you meet any of those criteria for an alert you could mention it. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a TP notice is a good idea, but that discussion has stalled. The other searches are slow. A TP notice would have to have links of course, I can't remember if they were suggested. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG and Awilley can make this work rather quickly - we just need our arbs to make a relatively minor modification to the Alert requirements to include/recognize the TP notice at the top of a UTP, and an opt-out option that will trigger a notice that the user is already aware when anyone attempts to add an alert. Awilley can explain it better. So...should I loan my cattle prod to KrakatoaKatie so she can get things moving at the next arb meeting? ^{FBDB Atsme} _Talk 📧 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The editor's obstinately idiosyncratic editing practices have not substantially changed - at least in the Roman Numerals article! As one who is "not without sin" I am not suggesting any particular course of action, but this editor's actions are wasting far too much of the limited time I have to spend on Wikipedia (and I'm sure this doesn't stop with me). Wish there was something that could be done - blocking does seem to be extreme in this case, as he is plainly not a "common" vandal/edit warrior: is there any other way of bringing him to his senses? -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted your deletion of content from Terrence McKenna. What is going on? I am unfamiliar with these types of articles but still experienced enough to know a little conflict when I see it. I'll revert myself if my reversion is an error. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 19:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your response to my behaviour yesterday. I still feel badly, which I think is only fair. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Roxy the dog: I'll admit to being shocked but I've got no problem with you now. I do have a concern however when I consider the problems you've had in the past. The last thing I want is to see you end up with the same behavior that got you blocked. So do me a favor, think about how you can keep a clean block log from now on as I want to see you around! Doug Weller talk 19:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. One of the Admins who blocked me in the past has now retired, before the latest nonsense. His actions held that particular article back for three or four years, and retirement has improved the project hugely. I would argue that the pettiness of admins on all of my blocks was incredible, shrug. With the way WMF have behaved recently, I couldn't care much less if I was no longer involved here.

I think perhaps that the one thing that really concerns me is that so many of us are so very surprised at FRAMGATE. I've had an account since 2008, I had to look it up . I have always known that the WMF can do anything they want, and we volunteers have no choice but to WP:AGF that the Foundation will not involve itself where they are not welcome. I'm amazed at the "Outraged/surprised" reaction, though I understand and support it because it's a good project. Tainted now though. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Doug, what do you think about this recent edit at Land of Punt? Is hard for me to believe that such hypothesis is backed by reliable sources. Khruner ( talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹ Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

² Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration ( permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

Hi, Doug - since you've been active placing DS alerts for CC, and considering I don't post alerts, especially to admins, would you please check the page history and alert those editors edit warring at Sheryl Attkisson per WP:NEWBLPBAN? They may not be aware. Thanks in advance... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) PS: the commonality here is the alert, not the topic.

There is no edit war going on there. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, hello Toa. Surely it must be a coincidence that you keep showing up wherever I post. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am writing to urge you to give The Secret Universe by Aerik Vondenburg on the Ancient Astronaut wiki another look. I see that you wrote in the comments that you deleted it because it was "stapled." I have a copy of the paperback in front of me and I can assure you that it is not stapled. If you go to the Barnes & Noble website https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-secret-universe-aerik-vondenburg/1130929549 you will see that the book is 576 pages long - i.e., impossible to staple. I also see that you deleted because it was self published, however, many, if not most of the books listed are self published. (e.g. David H Childress, David Icke, etc). In fact, most books that deal with "fringe" topics are being self published these days. I am asking that you please restore the listing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novoneiro ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Novoneiro ( talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Novoneiro: there was actually a more important reason. Such entries need to be encyclopedic, ie significant. That's why you'll find that there is almost always (should be always but things slip through) an article on the book or its author. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an archaeological ruin. It's primary name is not the name that those looking for information on site are most likely to use. The alternate transliteration, Charyos, needs to appear somewhere in the page to help reader connect this article with references to the same archaeological site in scholarly literature. Please advise as how best to accomplish this correction. You deleted my first attempt and I don't want to get it wrong again. Thanks! -- 54littleflowers ( talk) 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 54littleflowers

Hello, why did you remove my edition in the page List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources?, you said in the Revision history Page that was not a contemporary source, but I explain this in one of the citation that I put:

several ancient witnesses support an early dating and there is internal evidence for the place and date of this work in the language and theology of the work. The reference to an unknown Clement is presumed by some to be Clement of Rome; if this is that Clement, it would suggest a date c. 90 for at least the historicised setting of the first two visions. Since Paul sent greetings to a Hermas, a Christian of Rome (Romans 16:14)

. ( 2804:14D:32A0:26C2:98CD:741B:1A19:363E ( talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

If, if, if. That's a comment or a footnote, not a reliable source. However, if you wish you can ask at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"Do you think that this would be a reliable source for the claim that Louise d'Artois died from typhus? : Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. (1991). The Last Empress – The Life and Times of Zita of Austria-Hungary 1893–1989. If Google Books is correct, this book likewise contains this information. I can't access this book itself, though. Thus, I don't know what its source for this information is. Futurist110 ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)"

Your thoughts on Gordon Brook-Shepherd? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear: I spent a bit of time on this but didn't get far and I don't think I want to get involved as this is at [20] Doug Weller talk 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. So now we can use anything as a source? I guess I should not expect too much since Wikipedia appears to be in turmoil(Fram, mass resignations of Admins on English Wiki, Azerbaijani Admins and possible corruption). -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear: I don'deserve this attack. I've too much to do as it stands, both in real life and here. I did just post to say it's time to go to RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Doug, it was not meant as an attack, simply a reflection on the current state of Wikipedia(per the link you supplied, specifically this). My sincerest apologies. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, please see the following edit summaries [21] [22] [23]. This strikes me as a pretty huge no-no. This user also appears to be fairly disruptive generally, see the following edits [24], [25], [26]. Would you be able to take some sort of action against them?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(TPW) I'm on a mobile right now, but just posted to ANI asking that someone address this. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm asleep right now, but I've deleted the userpage per G10 and blocked as NOTHERE. Edit summaries need revdeling by someone who's awake. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

I am trying to sleep but I pulled out my flamethrower and burned up as much of that nonsense as I could. He’s created a few articles. Somebody needs to go through his history and check those articles to see whether they are copyright violations or otherwise needing to be deleted. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it looks like the account may have been taken over. The earlier contributions seem lucid, while the later ones are a stream of nonsense. I am not sure what happened to this account (or user). Jehochman ^Talk 02:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I see this happen lately. Compromise is a possibility. In some cases, there's a break, suggesting someone moved elsewhere for ideological reasons then came back (perhaps off-wiki canvassing), in some cases there are sleeping socks that were just created so enough time passes for check-user to be difficult, then reactivated... — Paleo Neonate – 02:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think some of the strangeness is from poor English skills. His German contributions appear a lot more cogent - he was blocked there for edit-warring and then evading the block on February 10. He appears to evince something of a bizarre hatred of Germany (both for Nazis and for Angela Merkel apparently) in both the English and German Wikipedias, but honestly it seems like he just lost it after German Wikipedia blocked him. The really weird stuff here all postdates the block there.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 03:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb ( talk · contribs) vouches for AustrianFreedom ( talk · contribs) [27] Perhaps his account was hacked prior to the February 10 block on deWiki. I asked Mm.srb to contact the account holder if he can, and see if we can get more information. Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

They've been banned on Serbian wikipedia too (June 25). It seems unlikely to me that there's been a hack - the user has been editing the same articles for his entire wikipedia career even before any noticeable problems started. And how likely is it that someone else who speaks Serbian, German, and English would take over an account of a user who also speaks those three languages? Their latest posts on their talk page lead me to believe they've had some sort of mental breakdown, honestly.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He's at it again. I've started a sock investigation, but could a friendly admin please revert the series of edits by User:R.Saringer and the IP Special:Contributions/84.114.224.212?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 02:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Indian creationism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps ( talk) 12:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am somewhat new to editing. I saw some of my edits to the ATS article were removed (and I am sure for good reason as I am learning how to edit articles on Wikipedia). Having said that I think it might be good to add a student services section. I could add a sentence about tuition/admissions varies by program. It is possible for transfer credits to be awarded, and that commencement is held annually in Albany, GA. Would that be acceptable - because I think this information is useful information that people reading the article would want to know. Mr. North Florida ( talk) 10:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For sorting out the SPI request. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey is there anyway you can block my old account? I no longer have any access to it and i don't wanna be accused of sockpuppetary. Thanks. Starkiller131 ( talk) 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Talk:Post-classical history#Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories-- Moxy 🍁 21:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, while creating Talk:Aziz Abu Sarah I added the ARBPIA template, thinking that the article was certainly a candidate for it. Soon after I realized that this might be a task only for administrators, but I reasoned that removing it myself might make two wrongs, or otherwise be sending the wrong message about the article's status. So is it a) I was correct and it should remain or b) I was correct and an administrator should have/needs to impose it or c) I was incorrect? Havradim ( talk) 01:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Havradim: no, you're fine. If you look at WP:A/I/PIA it says "The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." "Reasonably" rather than "broadly construed" is important. But yours looks "reasonably" construed. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In [28] you wrote " their resignations were not done to avoid scrutiny or sanction and the WMF, ArbCom, and our representative on the Board believe they resigned under a cloud." Did you meant to write "don't beliieve"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Unbeknownst to me, User:AspectRatiocination had been warned prior to this edit on political biographies. I leave the situation up to you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I neglected to mention the reason for those edits. The citations were weak and nebulous. The HuffPo article simply labels her as a 'white nationalist' and does not give any evidence for this. It's conjecture and opinion, and HuffingtonPost does not have the best track record for accuracy or objectivity. I suggest removing that passage until someone produces a more accurate citation. Duplicating this on the talk page for the Lauren Southern bio. AspectRatiocination ( talk) 17:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Parpoloa may be a professor but what authority does he hold on Indology to comment or compare an Assyria Goddess to Indian Goddess? He being a scholar in Assyrian mythology doesn't entitle him that right. I am an Indian and know my history well. Nothing in Inanna's story corresponds to Durga's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.84.25 ( talk) 19:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Still, he meets our criteria at WP:RS. You can challenge that at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I just now saw your message, Doug. Thanks for your kindness and patience. Can you explain what is needed for me to stop being abused on this site, treated unfairly, and basically aiding and abetting intellectual property criminals who are thieves of my creative writing? Ever since January 21st, 2018, I’ve been disqualified from contributing, just because I don’t even understand Wikipedia admin’s jargon laced “rules”. If someone would just instruct me on how to be taken seriously, I would be obedient. Thank you. 63.155.46.8 ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Lara Nicole Daskivich

Tricky as I only vaguely recall my message. Any email address issued by an organisation might help (I can't recall the exact issue you see). ISP addresses not so much as anyone can create one. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly! I received your instructions and I now have set up an email address: lara_daskivich@centurylink.net that was today, July 12th, 2019, issued to me by my landline phone company that I have been for decades a bill-paying customer of: CenturyLink, formerly known as Qwest, and you already said that an email address issued by my ISP (internet service provider) would help. Creative collaboration is often a result of being free, having independence from organizations; beatniks and bohemians are often more likely to be carefree enough to pursue collaboration. It is less likely that anyone tied to some organization, would even have the freedom to be wild and crazy enough to write a lyrical masterpiece, as I did. Why should everything credible depend on whether or not some organization issues them an email address? That’s discrimination right there, and proves Wikipedia is a big fat liar, especially because you already said an ISP issued email address would help, so what do I need to do next, to protect my login authentication and credibility? Awaiting your reply. 63.155.115.150 ( talk) 01:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Lara Nicole Daskivich

These IPs (including 63.155.126.207 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) which modified the post above without signing) are socks of User:Aralia Fresia / User:Lara Nicole Daskivich. Rangeblock possible? -- bonadea contributions talk 21:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Thanks for the edit on the Richard L. Thompson page. While I was certainly wrong about deletion of the section, I think there definitely is a strong need to add an intro to that section. It just jumps at you and appears out of place, and for someone who is not aware of the author (e.g. me!). Thanks, GreaterPonce665 ( talk)GreaterPonce665 19:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@ GreaterPonce665: it is in the second sentence of the lead, so I'm not sure how we can improve it, but if you think of something suggest it on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: Sorry, I need to take some smart pills right away.GreaterPonce665 19:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Sagar S has done 2000 recordings has clearly been cited on an official media report ^[1] cinecircle.com which is considered as the most popular and important online entertainment media page. Why arent u allowing that to be added? Prakashlyrics ( talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello DW. I have translated this article from de.wikipeda. There are additional sources and contents though. Is there a specific tag indicating that an article has been translated from x.wiki? Puduḫepa 09:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page gnome)@ Puduḫepa: {{ Translated page}} may be what you are looking for. If it's too much trouble, as long as there's a clear enough message on the talk page about the origins, this is sufficient for copyright attribution. I hope this helps, — Paleo Neonate – 23:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @ PaleoNeonate:. If I understand correctly, the template should not be on the mainspace but on the talk page? Puduḫepa 06:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Puduḫepa: absolutely. You're welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 06:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Thanks for your help on a recent SPI case. You suggested that article protection could be used. This would be quite useful, as this user jumps from IP range on a very regular basis. Their latest target is this article, a tournament that starts tomorrow. Would it be possible to protect this for the next few days, ideally for a week? No worries if not. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I reverted a user over at Antifa (United States) telling them to gain consensus for their edits in the talk page first, since they drastically changed the lede and other parts of the article, and they refused to do so. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, QuestFour ( talk) 00:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For your work on the Williamson-thing(s). Perhaps I should have seen that coming, but I didn't. If it goes no further I see no personal problems. I guess I'll notice if it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: do let me know, by email if more appropriate. I've got reason to worry though about the Admin he targeted. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is better now though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for making the changes back to what the article was originally using. Someone else other than me had originally changed the headings on the various section fro CE to AD, I just changed the body to match, not knowing that the headings had recently been changed. I just want to match the manual of style and have them all be the same on an individual article. And whoever did change the headings likely is doing so elsewhere, rather haphazardly, without even changing the articles actual text. So I would advise you to look in on what he is doing, since neither of us want that, or articles to be changed from their original dating systems. NDV135 ( talk) 08:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)NDV135

I don't understand why you changed "in order" to "out of order" here [29]. Also, you can't change your post after multiple people had already agreed with you below that a block is in order. Please go back and WP:REDACT properly -- striking old text and re-dating with ";edited ~~~~~" and hopefully adding an explanation for your change. Also fix the user link that's missing the closing brackets. Why is a block out of order if a ban is in order? Does not make sense. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 08:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug, back in May there was a discussion at Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran which seems to have resulted in a consensus that that article should be merged into Dhul-Qarnayn, with some indications that the article Cyrus the Great in the Quran should be similarly treated. (Both Alex and Cyrus articles look like pov forks to me, no doubt with a deep history). User:Mathglot suggested this towards the end of the discussion but didn't action it because he was involved in the discussion - and in fact no one actioned it. A user called User:AhmadF.Cheema objects to this, but he's currently in an edit war with me and seems not to understand Wikipedia policy at all - he wants to treat traditional Islamic scholars as RS, which they are not. Anyway, if you don't fear getting involved, you might like to contact Mathglot (is he an admin?) with a view to actioning this. And as for me, I really, really want to get out of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 ( talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

P.s. - I've left a message on Mathglot's talk page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 ( talk) 05:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some edits to Gareth Arnold should be redacted per WP:CRD#2, I think: [30] and probably [31] and [32]. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Koncorde: suggested I pass this information to you directly. More canvassed people, more hate on his facebook page. [33], [34], [35], [36] and a legal threat [37]. Thanks. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Related, I think this might be the Trasel thing again. [38] It looks like they are trying to fake a signature to an account. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Koncorde:Also, he is back to making extreme statements in canvassing. Things like "Wikiphags" [39] and "Wikipedo" [40] and "subhuman liberal shit" [41]. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

He's blocked and commuunity banned. That's all we can do, but reporting him to Facebook might be next. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned about the effects otherwise. I created a deletion discussion page about an author I've never heard of because one of his canvassed editors [42] removed a proposal from it. It was closed by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz with what I feel is a very un-civil commentary accusing me of attempting disruption and not writing it in good faith. I don't care the eventual status, if the person is notable and the article can be cleaned up with good sources that's great because it means my discussion creation did some good and poked some people into motion fixing things, but I dislike the accusation. If I read the policy correctly, is it not the case that canvassed persons are considered editing on behalf of the banned person? Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest may be considered, but at the same time many people are personally invested in many topics and edit without issue thousands of times per day as they follow the Wikipedia rules regarding neutrality, accuracy and verifiability. Koncorde ( talk) 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ask at WP:ANI but you need to show they've been asked to do it. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, what is needed? For instance, in timeframe this [43] appears to have been done in response to one of his posts today that I linked above. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 18:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @ Letcreate123: had already posted the same question but I am asking again with some of the latest I have found at WP:ANI as you suggested. Just letting you know. Thank you again. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 23:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Just letting you and @ Koncorde: know that I have followed up again with WP:ANI as the attacks this morning have gotten worse not better. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 15:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Also should I report this to WP:ANI or is there another place it should be reported? Jmaynard appears to be editing on Williamson's behalf. [44] "Jay Maynard Actually, I expect Tom Kratman to be next." "Aaron Bosen They already tried." "Glenn Edward McNally Jay Maynard didnt they already go after tom" "Michael Z. Williamson Yeah, they're in the process of trying to delete his right now." 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The above was followed within minutes by Jmaynard making three ugly and inciteful accusations of a conspiracy against "conservative" authors, [45] [46] [47] [48]. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 16:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

[49] "Jay Maynard So I see. Commented over there, too." 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This looks like wp:outing have they (that is they not anyone else) said this is their YouTube account)? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First it's Facebook not YouTube. Second Williamson is banned because in part of things he previously did on this very Facebook account [50]. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, @ Koncorde: too. [51]. I quit. You do whatever you want or need to, I've been called a "dog fellator" today and I've had it. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 16:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Power (2nd nomination) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Power

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Masum Reza ^📞 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Masumrezarock100: the only reason I didn't was so that anyone seeing [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Can someone fix the mess Twinkle has made to my Ken Power AfD? That's been done and I've deleted it. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the page. And sorry for messing up. I am embarrassed that I did 2 reverts. Lol. Masum Reza ^📞 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Masumrezarock100: don't worry, no problem at all. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Got your e-mail. I'll comply. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmnn... Is that a nasty threat to block me that I see there on my talk page that proves my point about moderators playing favors inappropriately to other users? Because that is the way I'm going to choose to interpret it, at the rate your going, here. Pragmatically, unless you want to end up added to the DRN, please stay out of DRN matters that don't directly concern you. Thank you for flying. Goodbye. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 08:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I recently moved Theoderic the Great to the more common spelling Theodoric the Great after a discussion there on the talk page. I'm trying to move all associated pages now, but for some reason it won't let me move Legends about Theoderic the Great to Legends about Theodoric the Great. Do you think you might be able to help?

Thanks!-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Ermenrich: done. I don't know what the problem was however. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug! I think it might be related to an episode a few months ago where an IP kept trying to move the page to Dietrich von Bern.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, shalom. There is a new contributor by the name of Nathandavidh who is adding non-sourced material to the article Missing years (Jewish calendar). Besides not showing any sources for his added material, his style is not very encyclopedic, besides being rife with many grammatical mistakes. Can you please warn him about adding non-sourced material, and to take his suggested edits to the article's Talk-Page? Davidbena ( talk) 10:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, you just posted a DS template at the talk page of a user with whom I am interacting. FYI, you left out the topic area. FYI#2 if you meant climate change, please note I sent them one just a few days ago, so they have already received their annual allowed max (one) for that topic area. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: oops. Fixed it. I saw yours, this was for BLP. Thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller and Nyttend

I would like to bring to your attention the work on the English wiki of an editor from the Portuguese wiki, which I believe is being done in bad faith. Said editor is presently blocked and under a number of restrictions for chronic WP:POINT, WP:POV, WP:DISRUPT editing despite numerous warnings and an impressive collection of blocks going back a decade.

This editor has been waging a long-running battle in the Portuguese Wikipedia over spellings, terminology and other elements that she favours. However, in the past few years, from time to time she drags her WP:EDITWAR to the enwiki to promote her point of view, either by adding (more) sources defending the form she prefers, changing the spelling or just plain provoking. Extending to the enwiki her tilting at windmills in the ptwiki is confirmed in her own words here, where she is very clear about what she is doing. To glean faster through the text, just word-search the term “prove”. Interestingly, on this occasion, she presented an image of a book cover to prove the existence of the term “ward”. She equally used the name of a person called “Ward” as evidence (Joe H. Ward of Ward's method). Another of her favourite battle fields is the name of categories of country subdivisions. I am including a number of examples for your perusal.

• 1. Examples in which she is reinforcing evidence of a specific spelling to further her argument include:
  • Mahi people here

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• Oko here, part of an on-going campaign the editor wages in violation of the ptwiki equivalent of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) [ policy.

I do not have an immediate example of this in the enwiki, but have seen edits in which the editor has changed words of Yoruba origin to the Yoruba spelling or added diacritics to the English equivalents.

• 2. Examples in which she wants to reinforce evidence of the use of certain words include:
  • Township here and here and here

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• Ward, various examples, as follows

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• • List of wards of Zimbabwe here
  • Category: Wards here; which I just was you personally removed
• 3. Example of category of country subdivisions:
  • Subdivisions of Gran Colombia here; reverted in the next edit.
• 4. Examples of just plain provocation include:
  • Cuanza Norte Cuanza Norte Province here,

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor has been notified Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

seeing as you are the person I see most commonly around on pseudoarcheology matters I wanted to ask for advice on the Mount Hasan article. Specifically, one of the major claims about that volcano is that an eruption thereof might have been portrayed on an ancient mural found in Çatalhöyük by ... James Mellaart who was apparently postumously discovered to be a forgerer. Thing is, no source that I could find has discussed that particular mural in the context of the discovery of the forgeries other than this one which doesn't look like a high-weight source. What would you advise? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting here (in case you haven't pings enabled) that I've responded on Talk:Mount Hasan with quotes from the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug:

I've had an account on Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and, although I use Wikipedia at least daily, I've made very few edits. Nonetheless, when I do make edits, I try to be careful and thorough. There was a Wikipedia UI change I encountered a few nights ago that (a) made me double-check that I was actually on Wikipedia, (b) must have been temporary, and (c) highlighted to me a Wikipedia feature I'd never noticed before: there were "alert" messages waiting for me. So, regarding the latter, I read them. One was from you regarding an edit I'd made to the Georgia Guidestones page about 10 months ago, which you immediately reverted. If one looks at the Georgia Guidestones page today, one sees that someone was finally able to make that edit to stick, the edit which I'd made 10 months ago. (I've gone through all of the various edits to that page, and I was surprised at how many of them were immediately reverted.)

So hey, I'm glad the Georgia Guidestones page is now finally showing Hindi, instead of Sanskrit, in both locations on the page where all 8 languages are mentioned -- only one location of which needed fixing when I made my edit -- but, I dunno (and please forgive me for even bringing this up, because it's such a small thing), I just feel like my reputation, negligible as it is on Wikipedia, has been somehow slighted or something. I only just today discovered my "User contributions" page, and although I don't really know what the +/- numbers in parentheses mean, they feel somehow like a "score" for each edit, and that "-6" next to the edit in question, given the edit's correctness, seems like a mistake.

Do you have the ability to change that "-6" to, I dunno, something non-negative? Do other people worry about stuff like this?

Thank you for your time!

OIC URAB ( talk) 09:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@ OIC URAB: first let me apologise for my erroneous revert - I'm not sure how I got confused. I can reassure you that your edits are not being scored. Your contributions list is similar to the page history, and as Help:Page history says, these figures represent "The difference in size between this revision and the previous revision. A green number with a plus sign (+1,864) indicates that the edit added this number of bytes (roughly corresponding to characters) to the page, while a red number with a minus sign (-29) indicates removal." Note that means "removal of bytes". There's nothing negative per se about reducing or increasing the size of a page. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The same editor has been systemically rewriting all the antifascism articles to insert a POV that antifascism is a communist front activity. See also: [52] and [53]. They also evinced exceptional WP:IDHT at article talk for Antifa (United States) regarding it being WP:UNDUE talking about a German movement with similar goals as if it were on-topic, including refusing to allow the hatting of off-topic conversation. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Myself and several other editors are engaged in a long argument over at Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent changes with an editor who initially at least was going to undo my entire rewrite of the article with RS because he is POV-pushing for the Christ myth theory. At seems clear that consensus is against him, so I'm relieved on that front, but he's still at it arguing and I'm concerned he'll take any silence as permission to start putting his POV into the article (which he has so far refrained from doing). I was wondering if you had any advice as to how to deal with the situation. It doesn't look like he's going to stop, he just keeps dismissing scholarly consensus and claiming that unspecified other scholars support his view of Jesus not having existed.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 02:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Ermenrich: you could try DRN. Or ANI - sorry, I thought I'd posted this yesterday, clearly didn't finish it. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. If he keeps it up now I'll take him to ANI probably.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 12:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it's a case for ANI now, or should I wait and see if he actually stops discussing and await whatever future things he does to other Jesus articles?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Ermenrich: wait a bit. But it's up to you and the other editors involved in the dispute. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, forgot to mention — I chose you for the issue above because I remembered I consulted you a few years back regarding a circle of socks involved in POV edits on Yoruba/ African/ pages. Habit of mine to call on the admins that I have approached before. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Rui Gabriel Correia: thanks for the explanation. The problem I have is that we normally have to treat an editor on the merits of their actions here, not elsewhere. Excepts are usually so serious the Foundation itself deals with them. Perhaps if it got to an ANI case their activity elsewhere might be a bit relevant, but it would almost always be decided, as I said, purely on their actions here. So I'm not sure what I can do right now and to be frank real life is overwhelming me at the moment and will for most of the summer. I'm really sorry that I can't be of more help. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. Thanks for looking into this. The intention was primarily to alert one or two admins so that if there was/ is any action to take, it would be known about sooner rather than later, by when it has snowballed ( Rasputin comes to mind, subsequently trimmed down by about 150,000 bytes after a vote). I will keep an eye and if it comes to ANI level will take it up. All the best with real life. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the discussion without being invited, but I consider this attitude an affront, and I agree with Rui's argument. Doug Weller, The user in question has been generating a series of editorial conflicts with various users over naming names and this conflict persists for years.

After getting tired of being attacked and offended by the user in the Lusophone Wikipedia, I have been requesting a series of sanctions that the Lusophone community has been agreeing to, see the log:

• Blocked May 18th: one day by Millennium bug ( talk · contribs)
• Blocked June 29th: one day by Tuga1143 ( talk · contribs)
• Blocked July 22th: one week by Tuga1143
• Prevented from creating articles - Community decision
• Blocked from editing in Wikipedia domain - community decision

On July 31th, the user took a stand against the title Ocô in the Lusophone Wikipedia ( see), since she modified the grammar here four days earlier

Have more! At Commons, in may she was warned by user Jcb for loading several Wikipedia print screens to prove she was right and the other users wrong, see. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 03:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just saw your long edit summary. At the time, I didn't know The Daily Mail was considered unreliable, and it might have been at that time. I don't recall whether I said "in an unusual move" but I am guilty of using The Daily Mail because I was trying to establish notability and that was a newspaper in a different country.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Vchimpanzee: I wouldn't worry about it, hardly a day goes by here when I don't learn something new. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment ( permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{ Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

I could eat this... Drmies ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Drmies: did I send you that url by mistake? I was looking at it recently and thinking of making it! Doug Weller talk 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, Doug--it was in my arbmail, where things go to die. ;) Drmies ( talk) 22:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[sits up on hind legs and begs for some] -- Softlavender ( talk) 00:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

August 06, 2019WolfHook (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Response: "Hello Doug. If you read carefully, 'moving sources elsewhere in the page to the top to challenge the prominence of the narrative' isn't really adding material, it's providing clarity on the existence of the material as people see it. It's nice to know your strange and political spin on the situation though. And I hardly think changing a single word which I found to be more technically correct to be a drastic alteration to the source material. Its actually so minute I'd simply forgotten about it. Given the content of the page, I think you'll agree that 'historically' is more accurate of a word. Also if my contribution is inaccurate and misleading, then why does that content appear elsewhere in the page, having been contributed there and kept by other wiki users? And that content also has academically acceptable sources? Indeed very strange. I fail to see what problem you specifically have with this edit. Thanks for reaching out to me though. I would suggest in the future you keep your anger and threats to a minimum to be taken seriously :D "

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 14:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no red flags to the Hurricane Gilbert reference link using Safari - or Interent Explorer.

The vast majority of all online web activity is by mobile device, using the mobile devices built in Safari, or WiFi.

Your previous edit blanking the ref, demanded a ref citation was required.

Now, you have added another hoop to jump through, another pre-qualification - the necessity of a secondary source??

You "personally" require a "a different source" to that same sermon?

So, in other words you would be happy to include the reference you blanked, to the Hurricane, if "another link/citation" to the "exact same sermon" is added to the article ref. in which Armstrong talked in great length about being on the island during Gilbert?

I would like a second opinion - other than yours, and believe we should take this to the article talk page. (I have copied this to the talk page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.147.122 ( talk) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Who invented the first aeroplane..is it wright brothers or the indian shivkar bapuji talpde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:2306:80F4:16DD:A9FF:FEA3:749 ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither, see History of aviation. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Could you have a look at this article? I had placed an In-universe tag in it which was reverted. The article fails to state clearly in the lede that its subject is a religionist invention that has not the tiniest root in actual history or language of Egypt, ancient or otherwise. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Cush: I think it's pretty clear from the lead that this is a religious belief. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

We were having a slight edit repartee in the Latin American article, you unilaterally erased the mention of the millions of Latino descendants in the Philippines. During that 1870 survey, 1/3rd of the main island of Luzon which has half of the Philippine population had Spanish and Latin American admixture and the author Fedor Jagor is reliable since he is an esteemed German Ethnographer. You are breaching the wikpedia guidlines on fairness by blotting out the existence of this. Tell me, do 13.33% of the population of a people cease to exist somehow just because the racial surveys stopped afterwards? Dated census results are still census results. Morever, is it fair to deny that Latino ancestry ever existed in the Philippines which was under Mexican rule for 300 years ( Viceroyalty of New Spain) while nations with insignificant Latin American populations like Australia get a mention?

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You left me a warning note about Gamer gate and related articles but I have no idea what article(s) it refers? Gleeanon409 ( talk) 22:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New sockpuppet User:Benjamin Samasa restored their changes on the article Negrito exactly after you reverted them. 170.249.174.186 ( talk) 05:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

only edit so far. Johnbod ( talk) 15:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)\

@ Johnbod: ?? What am I missing? Doug Weller talk 16:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Johnbod ( talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you review my ENTIRE Wikipedia history, you would notice that MOST of my sources are verifiable and legitimate, however, I admit I am very prone to using non-mainstream sources because I have alot of friends in Facebook who suggest new content for me to introduce here and it is they who usually edge me on to do this. (You can add me in Facebook if you like my Username here is the same there, I am pretty much an open book, I don't hide in aliases) Anyway, if you notice, once I see that I am wrong (Which only happens in a minority of my edits) I usually don't go about it and i just accept correction. You can ask users like Stricnina who I had a long argument with but eventually accepted the erasure of 2 of my articles because I simply acknowledged that they were wrong. Mentioning the possibility of my banning is uncalled for especially considering that the vast majority of my edits are true to form and only a minority are in need of correction. You don't judge a person by his small mistakes but what he does habbitually. Although I respect you as an Administrator, that mentioning of banning is just uncalled for, especially considering that I have been editing Wikipedia for at least 11 years and except for a few mismatches have been adding content faithfully, that is all.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 02:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Even though you made me suffer by mentioning banning and proposing that I don't know how to cite valid sources, and even deleting content in the edit history (Which could be used as evidence), I forgive you since you like me are only human and we are both prone to mistakes and that I choose to judge you by most of your work which is valid and good over the small mistakes you commited against me. I just am hurt that you insinuated that I'm not a good citer of sources when in fact MOST of my sources are verfiable and only a tiny minority are not, and even then I accept most correction.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 04:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you're avoiding the inevitable reckoning when you run a checkuser on yourself and find that I am actually you. Nblund ^talk 13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it ok that I restore my content in the Nagarakretagama? The primary contention of Lourdes Rausa-Gomez was that there was no archeological evidence that the Philippines was part of Majapahit by the time she wrote that piece however, during the late 1980s AFTER that piece was written, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found which said that the Lord of Tondo reported to an administrator from Medang (Indonesia). She herself wrote that if archeological evidence were discovered, then we should dismiss her propositions. I just used that source since that's what was given to me by another person.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 03:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't restore my edit because you erased my edition in the history section of Nagarakretagama. Why did you do this? This irks me, I already proved to you that the author herself said that we should reject her dismissal of connections between Majapahit and Srivjaya if archeological proof arose (Which it did in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription). I was right since square one in that regard, now why do you have to punish me by making me do the extra effort of re-researching and retyping from that source because you lacked discretion and just deleted it even the history section point blank? You are not supposed to erase the contents in the edit history so that abitrators can use it in consensus building or conflict resolution. I still respect you as a mod, but that action is again uncalled for. I am screenshotting my history and editions from now on since you have a propensity to delete them unilaterally.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 04:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I found a public internet archive with a copy of that article here...

http://www.philippinestudies.net/files/journals/1/articles/890/public/890-3805-1-PB.pdf

As you can see from the year it was published it's pretty dated, it is from the year 1967.

https://i.imgur.com/Z2PdUPj.png

Here'es the portion where she said we should update our paradigms once new archeological discoveries are unearthed pertaining to this (Which came after the article was published when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found 1989.)

https://i.imgur.com/q6VdvGv.png

As you can see, the assertion that she previously put forth has been refuted and that there is indeed evidence that the Philippines was under Majapahit. ::So which means that the books she refuted are now under a different light and that archeological evidence has proven it in favor of these.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind I will restore my edits on Nagarakretagama and add a citation of that book since that was your bone of contention, so I would acede to that. Is that acceptable to you?

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 13:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You say that I shouldn't use Y-DNA study from Applied Biosystems and the 1870 census by Fedor Jagor. To prove that there is Latin American descent among Filipinos. Ok then how about I add, a genetic study from National Geographic? The Genographic Project of National Geographic says that most Filipinos have residual Native American descent and there is also another genetic study from the Institute of Human Genetics in California that of the East Asians they analyzed only the Filipinos hold a significant amount of European and Native American descent.

National Geographic Study: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/ California Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26092716

Don't tell me that the California Institute of Human Genetics and the National Geographic are unreliable sources because that's just pushing it. Anyway, if you won't mind I will restore the edits you reverted and even cite stronger evidence from these two institutions. You honestly are willing to sacrifice form over essence. The Philippines has been ruled by Mexico for 300 years yet you want to erase a mention of a Latin American population in the Philippines having Mexican descent because it does not conform to your standards, whereas you tolerate the mentioning of miniscule Latin American descent in Finland or Australia for example. You prioritize what looks good over what is essential

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 03:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll restore the mention of Latin Americans in the Philippines while using the National Geographic study and the Institute of Human Genetics findings as evidences for it.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. ( talk) 14:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The version before I edited the page conspiracy theory violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I fixed it. ( MisterJay123 ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC))

I just came to look at this and noticed a script I used had struck through his name, meaning he's been blocked. So I checked - he's blocked for a month and his 2nd unblock appeal is, wait for it, "I believe Wikipedia admins are nerds that live in denial and deny factual true conspiracies like the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Mockingbird. MisterJay123 (talk) 5:30 pm, Today (UTC+1)" Doug Weller talk 16:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it contradicted in the main article? Look at the info box. It says Gihon Settlement (which was the first habitation of the area by man) 3000-2800 BC!!!!!!

2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F ( talk) 15:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I link up to find out about Wikipedia's three edit rule? 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F ( talk) 15:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR. -- Yamla ( talk) 15:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!! I did not know that. I guess it is true what they say that you learn something new every day!!!!!! 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F ( talk) 15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In this edit you indicated you were restoring old wording. Something must have gone wrong; your addition is ungrammatical and has poor punctuation. The edit summary did not indicate the source of the wording. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Agh. @ Jc3s5h: I'm not sure how that happened. I was trying to restore the text that was changed in July without discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Help!!!!!! I know that I am putting in the correct username and password, but I cannot access my Wikipedia account!!!!!! Do accounts get deleted if you don't access them after a certain period of time?????? 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F ( talk) 15:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you'd consider leaving the bit about using sites like the pew research center to determine someone's political leaning? I truly do believe it could serve as a neutral/fair alternative method of accurately identifying someone's ideals, rather than using what is effectively opinion pieces. (Both primary n secondary sources in this regard would be at best well informed opinions.) The rest was nonconstructive, and I understand it's removal, regardless of validity, as it's primary purpose was to dissuade individuals from continuing a fruitless debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I finally managed to access my account!!!!!!! Yippee!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 19:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me? Is there, like, a quality rule of something? Thanks! Sincerely, Humorous. ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Humorous1234: there is, see MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. A draft may be great, but it may drastically fail all our policies and guidelines. So you h ave to wait until and if it becomes an article. I can't see Conch Republic Navy having its own article, by the way as it's already mentioned in the main article. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Sincerely, Humorous. ( talk) 03:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I gather from Huldra's page that you are pressed for time (and I hope in real life this finds you well). But I wonder if you could glance at the Eran Elhaik additions by a newbie SPI. I did some reverts because of obvious violations, this is a BLP page, and that info is all WP:OR. He takes as definitive a critique of Elhaik et al's work, ignoring that the critique in question was given a point by point rebuttal (Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, Eran Elhaik, Responding to an enquiry concerning the geographic population structure (GPS) approach and the origin of Ashkenazic Jews - a reply to Flegontov et al 17 Aug 2016) It is not a question of the merits of either position. This is simply an ongoing debate of a highly technical character, and the intruder is using wiki and Elhaik's page to take sides. Further, he doesn't engage on his talk page, but simply repeats the text he stitched up. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani ( talk) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

When I asked about the three revert rule, I was not referring to you. I wanted to be sure that I was not in violation of the three revert rule!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually I dismissed that as soon as I thought of it and was sure that you were asking about yourself. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)