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 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Hi, I was reading this article a month or so ago, but when I came back, many of the quotes by researchers offering a balanced perspective saying they were not "black" or "white" have been removed by one user who claims to be retired, but is consistently editing things out.

Who handles this page, and why has it been locked? It is unfair that a single person can simply clear out information as they see fit and now the number of scholars mentioned is less and a fair perspective into this dispute has been completely lost.

I am referring to these in particular:

102.217.80.26 ( talk) 13:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The whole section is an unencyclopedic collection of quotes. It badly needs a rewrite. But, obviously, it cannot start with the deletion of the best quotes. I have restored the block from 2011 to 2020. – Austronesier ( talk) 14:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{ rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{ uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

Hi Doug Weller, I stumbled upon a log entry at WP:AELOG/2022 you had placed, wondered about the 6-month-part, saw it in another entry and wondered, wondered, wondered... and then I figured I'll just ask directly at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions, as I found the question quite interesting. I hope that's okay. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@ ToBeFree it’s fine, an error though. I copied Ymblanter without thinking. I’ll respond tomorrow.I hadn’t thought it through. Obviously they can appeal. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, no worries from my side! If it had been one single entry, I'd have asked Ymblanter directly; it probably can't hurt to have a central clarification about this either, though. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm approaching you because you are the admin who blocked User:Barecode on 09:37, September 3, 2022. I still have them on my watchlist and noticed a strange query. This involves Barecode, Ark25, and Arwenz.

On 19:58, November 5, 2022, User:Arwenz, a Romanian editor who is blocked there, asked if Barecode was Ark25 and a clone. [13]

"Hello, are you Ark25? I was blocked for being your clone on Romanian Wikipedia. Can you please help me to prove that I am not you? Thank you!"

On 14:47, June 14, 2020, Barecode had asked User:Ark25 if they were a clone. [14]

"Hello, on the Romanian Wikipedia it says that my user is a clone of your user. I would like to know if we live close and maybe that's where the confusion comes from. You can contact me? Thanks. barcode at google dot com" (Google translate)

When comparing Barecode and Ark25, I see that Ark25 stopped editing in 2020, and Barecode started editing shortly afterward. I don't see any overlap in time or any block for Arks25, so there may not be any block evasion, just a fresh start. There is some overlap in shared interests which makes me suspect it may be the same person.

Also, Ark25 had been warned about being a confirmed sock. User_talk:Ark25#Note_about_use_of_multiple_accounts

I don't understand this. Maybe it's nothing. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Valjean I don't see a need to do anything, given the lack of overlap. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This may come in handy if any problems arise, but no need to do anything now. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a day passes, Doug, without moments of wishing you well. No need for an update. I'm sure our collective silence expresses profound respect and regard as you gather your energies to wage what is a very private war. Please don't waste your precise reserves of energy by answering. Finest regards. Nishidani ( talk) 16:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Nishidani replying to the above so replying to you. This means a lot to me, thanks. Getting stronger but there's a prostate issue and a fleck in my chest, both being checked out. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder. This is the week one should make, and hang on the rafters a plump plum pudding for Christmastide. These existential necessities are often overlooked in the rush of modern life, esp. when you must focus on the downside. Best Nishidani ( talk) 17:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I found you listed here [16]. Would you mind suppressing or RevDel-ing these [17], [18]? I'm not sure which is appropriate here. If I should take this to someone else, please let me know. Hope you are healing up. Thank you. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 16:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@ EnPassant Done, out of caution I suppressed. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 18:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions, I have amended a sanction you previously logged at WP:AELOG/2022. The archived request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@ MJL Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have often heard warnings about using caution in obtaining information from Wikipedia especially on topics outside of settled factual matters. Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test. I'm summarizing this here to serve as whatever record it may (assuming you don't further abuse your authority to delete or modify this):

I made the following 2 modifications to the page in Sinauli [19] and you cited both of them as examples of unsourced information: User talk:HandleDePlume

You, nor any of the other 3 individuals who kept reverting my change, have yet to explain why I need to prove a negative. No mainstream scholar agrees with the assessment that is provided in the quote. It's as simple as that. And yet, instead of presenting any evidence of agreement by mainstream scholars, you simply abused your authority and blocked me. It makes one wonder what your rationale is for controlling information like this.

And, the other change you cited is quite comedic. The existing source cited was already to a popular non-academic media. My minor change only clarified the sentence.

It's also interesting the strategy the 4 of you took. From my brief understanding, 3 reversions of an edit in a 24 hour would result in someone being blocked or something negative. So, 3 different editors chose to keep reverting my changes. Not too shabby! HandleDePlume ( talk) 10:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@ HandleDePlume: Please be aware of the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which you seem to be skirting with your accusations, and the guideline at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which you appear to have done ("what I wished to test"). When four different editors have reverted your edits, it is pretty clear that what you are trying to insert into Wikipedia is not acceptable. And the requirement that content be verifiable from reliable sources is policy. - Donald Albury 18:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Edited to resend ping. Donald Albury 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Donald Albury: Dear Donald. Have you actually read this policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If not, as it seems, here is the main point of it:

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently.

As you can see “what I wished to test” was not Wikipedia’s policy nor its application. It was to test the basic trustworthiness of information in Wikipedia (my very first sentence). If there is a policy concerning testing the trustworthiness of information, I would very much like to see it.

Yes, of course unsourced information should be unacceptable. That would be my basic expectation of any encyclopedic source. But context is also critical in ensuring that a reader of a topic isn't presented information in a skewed manner. I actually see that there are sections called "Context matters" and "Age matters" within the policy on reliable sources which you seem to ignore. Nearly 4 days have now gone my and not a single one of these individuals has bothered to substantiate with even one reference to a mainstream scholar who has expressed agreement with the quote that is dropped in this article with no context. And, the reference from which the quote is taken is itself over 2 years old. So yes, context and age matter.

I have seen this issue in the histories of multiple articles on wide ranging topics. A quote from some source is presented with no context which presents a distorted image to the reader. Because the quote itself is linked to a source, it's somehow seen as acceptable. A correction or clarification based on the self-evident nature of the lack of context elicits a rejection that it’s "unsourced" or in my example a demand to prove a negative. This is either a deliberate tactic to present only a certain perspective or a troublingly deep lack of competence in writing neutral unbiased reference material. Bottom line of all this - information on Wikipedia is often untrustworthy. Worse, sometimes it's used to defame someone as in the case of this poor man, Michel Danino.

Lastly, it's telling that while quoting various policies to me, however incorrectly or selectively, you have been silent on the guidelines for undoing or reverting changes which none of these 4 individuals has followed. Your statement, “When four different editors have reverted your edits, it is pretty clear that what you are trying to insert into Wikipedia is not acceptable.” means the standard for adjudicating information on Wikipedia is the equivalent of a twitter poll and high-minded guidelines can also be ignored by such a poll.

My accusations of the untrustworthiness of the information on Wikipedia as well as the concerted actions of the individuals involved in my initial message are further underscored in this one. Your view of this as a personal attack, direct or skirting, is solely under your control. Another thing only under you control - your priority in all this seems to be various policies rather that presenting information in a neutral unbiased manner which presumably should be the main objective of any encyclopedia. HandleDePlume ( talk) 03:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In this edit at Sinauli you added the following text:

No main-stream scholars to date have expressed support for Parpola's interpretation of the finds as early Aryans using bull-drawn carts.

but you did not provide a source for this. Since all challenged assertions *must* be cited with a reliable source, it was properly removed in the following edit by another editor. Your negative assertion is still an assertion, and must be accompanied by a citation when asked to, and failing that, it must be removed. Your logic about "not proving a negative" is faulty; I could go to the Moon article, and add:

No main-stream scholars to date have expressed support for the theory that under the crust lies 2,000 miles of putrid Gorgonzola cheese,

and since it is a negative, by your logic, it does not need to be cited, because you can't prove a negative. What fun we could all have with articles, if by the simple trick of phrasing an assertion as a negative, you protect your assertions from ever being subject the requirements of WP:Verifiability, and on top of that, no one could ever undo any of your unsourced assertions, because you can't prove a negative. The bogus logic here should be obvious to you, and I assume you won't make me spell it out.

Whether you agree with the system of WP:Verifiability at Wikipedia or not, these are the rules we play by. As a brand new user, you get a certain amount of slack, but now that this has been explained to you more than once, your slack is starting to run out. If you don't wish to adapt and play by Wikipedia's rules, then either find a place more congenial to you, or resign yourself to your slack eventually running out entirely, and your current block being extended to removing your editing privileges entirely. You're obviously an intelligent person, so I hope it doesn't come to that. Good luck, Mathglot ( talk) 08:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Mathglot thanks. Looks like their slack ran out. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So glad to see you back! Go as slow as you need to as you ease back into things, but at whatever speed, it's nice to see you. Mathglot ( talk) 10:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Mathglot thanks Two more cancer hurdles to go, if I can get past them I should be clear. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You protected it, but it doesn't have a padlock, and I'm not sure how to add it correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don’t know why I did as it already had pending changes. I removed my protection and the padlock now shows up but you need to re advise the IP because it’s protected for the next three months still. Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably because the pendees were borderline disruptively sucky. I rewrote my sage advice to the IP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång Could be. Let me know if I should restore it. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Will do! FYI-ping to @ DaxServer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This discussion feels very familiar... Oh yes: User_talk:Ymblanter#Ram_Setu_(film). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You know, I think you should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually checked the new plot with earwig, but I didn't catch anything. What did you find? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång I did a copy and paste, found it was copied from an IMDB review and another review. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, there it is. No spaces and everything. My no-well-known-source-would-publish-this-so-he-probably-wrote-it-himself hypothesis was wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång lol. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Doug,

You tagged this editor as a sockpuppet but it is a nonexistent user. Did you mean to tag a different editor's User page? Just checking. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Liz yes, Histury613. I’ve done that. Thanks though, I might have missed it. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

So, I came here to deliver a mild whine about this [24]. But I see you are trying to get well. That's more important. Take care. Adoring nanny ( talk) 23:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Adoring nanny thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a thing is it? Is that why I sometimes see multiple edits to the same article adding and removing spaces etc? Knitsey ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Or to get ECP - if I find that I remove the ECP. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Every day is a learning opportunity on Wikipedia for me lol.

I see you haven't been well (I snooped). I hope you're starting to feel better. Knitsey ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Knitsey I am, but have more chemo and a prostate biopsy which may lead to an op. Not at all good sadly. But I’m fighting. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's all you can do - fight. It sounds like you've been through the wringer. I really do hope things improve for you. Knitsey ( talk) 13:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not take it back to what it use to say per your own edit [25]. The article referenced (OUP) repeatedly states non Christian then states traditions believe Jewish. Also the reference next to the OUP reference states she wasnt Jewish on p.63 but a member of the Axym royal family, this is contradicting. The ethnicity section is also all over the place with different theories. Magherbin ( talk) 19:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The “New” Immigrants is this license acceptable to transfer over to us I actually think this article is pretty good and the sources are good too. Looking for a easy solution we've had some more problems and my times is limited. Moxy- 03:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Moxy: Butting in: Unfortunately, the "Non-commercial" part is not acceptable to en.wiki, which requires CC-BY-SA, which allows commercial reuse. I don't agree with that, but there it is. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

that's what I was thinking just wanted to double check. Transferring over contest is not something I normally do but see it a lot so I thought I'd double check Moxy- 03:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Beyond My Ken thanks for stepping in here with an answer! Doug Weller talk 08:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I came across se referencing issue with the Buddy Holly article, and found that the most recent additions bappear to be a direct copy of this article. I've reverted the addition, but was wondering big you would do the required revdel? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. My warning and yours were simultaneous but as mine is different, I think it’s ok. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. I think the dual warnings are fine, they are very different in content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ ActivelyDisinterested Their response was unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, but I thought I'd try and back them away from the edge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 14:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Doug Weller. There is an ongoing dispute about contentious information in the article Tudor Dixon. I am unsure if a relevant arbitration that calls for removal of such information while being discussed is still valid or not because it is being ignored. Could you check the issue if you have some time or interest? Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s being discon the talk page, that seems sufficient. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Can you provide me guidance regarding the arbitration ruling or point me in the right direction? I know said arbitration is a rule of thumb but now I am confused about its principle to remove questioned info while being discussed. Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Certainly a good rule pf thumb. But I don’t have time tonight to look at the discussion in detail. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for having checked the issue! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, an editor has posted links to what I think would be criminal activity : buy counterfeit Canadian bank notes, and how to get magic mushrooms. Both links have been reverted, but should they also be hidden, so not even in the history of the pages?

See: Psilocybin mushroom Banknotes of the Canadian dollar

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 12:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz done, blocked their subpages deleted. Thanks for spotting it. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Woow, that was fast! Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 12:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I posted to you on my phone and the message at the top of this page didn't come up. Didn't realise you were convalescing; hope all is going well! Didn't mean to bother you. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 21:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz not a problem. I’m getting stronger but am facing more chemotherapy and maybe surgery for prostate cancer, certainly a biopsy. This has sadly been the worst year of my life but I remain cheerful and optimistic. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I'd sincerely hope the biopsy comes out clean for you. More chemotherapy is hard, but you've already survived it pretty well so far. So I also do hope that that continues like that. And you have already survived two very difficult surgeries, and that is pretty remarkable. So I think you should continue resting a lot and convalescing, and that you should be very proud of what you have already accomplished so far. Keep your remarkable strength and courage, and much good luck to you too for the coming years. Cheers! warshy ^(¥¥) 22:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Warshy Thanks very much for these encouraging words. But resting IS not my thing and I’m trying to walk more and more and must restart a mild exercise circuit my wife and I set up before my last op, maybe even restart Pilates. I’m determined to stay as strong as I can After all, I’m only 80! Doug Weller talk 08:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep on walking! I know it does my 79-year-old heart good. Donald Albury 17:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug, your energy is truly awesome! Keep hanging in there! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Doug: I just learned of your medical situation. My very best to you for a quick and full recovery! Kudos to you for continuing to edit as much as you've been able to - Wikipedia needs you!! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug: Wow! Your accomplishments at this young age are really much more than remarkable. They are truly awesome. I do hope you and your wife can get back to your exercise circuit soon, and even to restarting Pilates. I hope you do feel stronger and stonger as you go! warshy ^(¥¥) 01:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I admire the way you just keep on keepin' on. Second what Donald Albury said. Carlstak ( talk) 02:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again all. I'm told that there is no need for intervention for prostate cancer and 6 monthly blood tests will be enough. They want to avoid serious consequences - like my dad having his urinary tract ruined. What a relieve! Just chemo. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason I elected to stop being tested for PSA years ago. Best wishes, ongoing! Donald Albury 17:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh that is good news! I've been lurking for it with growing admiration, now reinforced by your "Just chemo"! You're a fine example to us all. NebY ( talk) 18:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. ( T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

Did you post this in the wrong place? DefThree ( talk) 23:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@ DefThree wow, thanks very much. I have no idea how I managed to do that. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to see the latest thread on my talk page for further thread in the discussion: it appears this user has removed it from his page. Best wishes. Hope you are doing much better after all of the surgery etc. Andre 🚐 22:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, he says he left an edit summary. You can’t do this with the normal Rollback for vsndalism. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Stumbling across this from your talk page, maybe I can help shed some light on it, if you still need? So, from a technical perspective, "rollback" is a specific action, separate from a standard edit, that you can direct the software to do if you're logged in and have the "rollbacker" permission (or "admin", since rollback is bundled into it). When this action is taken, the resulting entry in the contribuions/page history will get tagged with the "rollback" flag, to indicate that rollback was used. Some anti-vandalism tools, like Twinkle, do *not* actually use this rollback action; they emulate it themselves through normal edits, even though the end result to the page is similar. That's why reverts done with Twinkle aren't tagged as rollback, and it doesn't require the rollback permission.

Now, there are two ways one can invoke rollback proper. The first is by clicking on the "rollback: x edit(s)" links that appear in the regular Wikipedia interface. When you do this, rollback is invoked, and a generic, canned edit summary of "Reverted x edit(s) by User:Foo" is applied. This is what policies like WP:ROLLBACKUSE are talking about when they talk about standard rollback, ... using the generic edit summary that is automatically added when the "rollback" button is clicked.

However, there is another way to invoke the rollback action, which is through the Mediawiki API. Using the API directly is not feasible for one-off edits, but any user script or tool that invokes the rollback action will almost always do so through the API. And when rollback is invoked through the API, a custom edit summary *can* be applied, even though the true rollback action was invoked, and the rollback tag applied.

This is why the rollback policy goes on to say that If a tool, manual, or alternative "rollback" or reversion method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Even if the rollback action was used, and a rollback tag was applied, it's still possible for a meaningful edit summary to be used, and if a meaningful edit summary was applied, then the restrictions on rollback are lifted.

One example of a script that does this is my own massRollback script; it uses the true rollback action, so any edit made with it will require the rollback right and apply the rollback tag. But it does also allow the user to type in a meaningful edit summary before it does so, so the restrictions on rollback might not necessarily apply, depending on the edit summary that the user chooses and the edits that are being rolled back. Hope this helps, Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 16:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Writ Keeper thanks. the edit is this one.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&diff=1125146881&oldid=1125133055] So I presume the editor must have used a script? Doug Weller talk 16:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, looks like that edit used RedWarn (based on the RW 16.1 link in the edit summary). I'm not personally familiar with that script, but I see on its documentation page that it allows the user to enter custom edit summaries in the way I described above. So, I think it's fair to judge whether that edit summary was helpful or descriptive on its own merits, but I think it's passed the bar of not being rollback misuse. Just in my opinion. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 17:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Writ Keeper agreed p. The editor told me he used Redwarn, I do also. But I have a big problem with the Rollback tag, click on it and it says not to be confused with Redwarn. Surely that’s a problem? Doug Weller talk 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like that hatnote is imprecise. There is apparently a switch within RedWarn that can change it between emulating rollback, like Twinkle, or outright using the rollback action, for those with the rollback permissions. So it looks like that hatnote is referring to RedWarn's functionality outside of rollback, but RW also includes actual rollback functionality. You'd be able to tell the difference by looking at the tags on the edit; it'd be tagged with "Tag: Rollback", as that edit was, if the editor used the true rollback mode, and "Tag: RedWarn" otherwise. A bit confusing, for sure. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 23:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Writ Keeper I think I'll bring this up at the VP:Technical. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Doug, since you've previously discussed the article on Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry in its Talk page in a past year, please, when you have extra time, weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" at /info/en/?search=Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Wikipedia editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B10C:301B:7D43:2460:7EE4:2724 ( talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not Doug Weller, but maybe perchance to send it to an noticeboard or WP Project and see what the users there say? I am a little afraid though that Mr Weller, probably the most admired WP editor/admin, won’t be active anymore like PaleoNeonate. Wolfquack ( talk) 13:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Although he is recovering so we must bare that in mind that he may not be as quick to respond as he may have been able to beforehand. Wolfquack ( talk) 13:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m very fond of your WP work and all you’ve done to help the encyclopedia, but I think it’d be a bit ‘wiser’ if perhaps you make sure the notifications you send to other editors are unsettled situations. Most of the notifications you sent me were past positions that I have already settled on from months ago, and I took the reproof and criticism from it and moved on.

TL;DR just make sure that your aren’t late to situations that have (or are being) taken place. I do understand that you have been recovering from a surgery so I do give you the benefit of the doubt, hope you get better soon. Regards Wolfquack ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Wolfquack As I recall they were settled off your talk page, which I didn't know. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

yes I wrote this before you replied back so apologies for that! Wolfquack ( talk) 14:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:Métis#RFC Ontario Moxy- 15:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Which is why it can cause confusion when an apparently untrustworthy source is removed if the edit-summary seems to imply a mere stylistic preference. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see that as about style. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't see it as being about reputable sources either. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Tamzin Thanks, not sure though what you mean. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller I know just as much as you do, but perhaps it is a new discovery of the OP that they “didn’t think of sooner”? Wolfquack ( talk) 12:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I remember promising to make significant improvements to an article but for the life of me I can't remember which article it was and I'm also pretty sure I never did. Any chance you remember the article? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadly no. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, to the interaction logs I go! Again, very sorry for dropping the ball. I hope you're doing well. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Jason Colavito. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Horse Eye's Back ah yes, use the reviews I added to the talk page to add to the article. Helps reinforce the fact he's an RS. It's normal to list such reviews in any case. If you have time, that would be great! Doug Weller talk 19:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

hello, why did you revert my edit in the El (deity) article ? 93.173.108.138 ( talk) 04:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Mister IP,just view the “history” page where he explained the revert, you kept replacing “Yahweh” with “YHWH”. Also perhaps make an wikipedia account so people won’t confuse you with a sock/troll. It’s common for some editors to assume that, as many ip’s have a history for that sort of thing. Wolfquack ( talk) 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Wolfquack Thanks. I also explained on the IP’s talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome Doug, I’ll probably go “peep” at their talk page to help out in case if anything is needed or goes out of hand. Wolfquack ( talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Well this is interesting, this IP has a contribution log clogged with reverts. I don’t suggest to do an investigation as it could might as well be an new editor, but something to “keep in your pockets”. Wolfquack ( talk) 18:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Just realized it was fr the same reason as the El deity reverts. Maybe discard my former comment. Although I did leave a message on the IP’s talk suggest to him to perchance make an account. Wolfquack ( talk) 19:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello and hope you’re doing well. I haven’t been around and keeping up with things but randomly thought about you and hope you’re doing well! PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s kind of humorous to me that you’ve gotten three messages in less than 30 minutes! You admins are quite very busy here on Wikipedia. Doesn’t bother me that your taking care of this encyclopedia, keep up the good work Doug 👍! Wolfquack ( talk) 19:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Also I tried my best to respond to these messages to help out, but when you do have time to respond perhaps give your input to these issues because these topics do have some concerns. Wolfquack ( talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This user, whom you gave a final warning, [38] now tries to remove an I.B. Tauris source authored by Touraj Daryaee on the supposed merit that it is a "self-published source". [39] Looking at the warnings left on their talk page and their overal editorial pattern, I don't think they are here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon ( talk) 19:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ LouisAragon I am not Doug but it looks like the user in question had been edit warring on Battle of al-Qadisiyyah already. I have some suspensions that this user may be a sock/troll, but there is not enough conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. Although the editor does appear to be ruthless in his editing pattern. Wolfquack ( talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ LouisAragon While definitely misguided in editing, the user does appear to be WP:GF, as he is right (albeit wrong at the same time) that self published sources aren’t allowed. So maybe either you or I send a memo to him that the source is not self published on his talk page. Wolfquack ( talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but perhaps (?) the issue here is related to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Iranian Politics disruption continues. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish Interesting. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Well from this comment, I feel this editor is WP:NOTHERE, " ....one thing i hate about the english wikipedia is it’s zionist and anti-arab/anti-muslim biases...". -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

First, I want to reiterate that I regret suggesting that you were in any way operating in bad faith. I don't think that. Repeating misinformation is *not* the same thing as acting in bad faith, obviously. You're clearly an esteemed editor here, and it wasn't appropriate for me to not AGF. Other admins...I have suspicions. You - clearly acting in good faith.

Also, upon your suggestion, I opened up an RFC on the David Duke talk page. When you reverted my edit, you expressed that it "seemed reasonable" to include the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence, but unfortunately you didn't elaborate. Since every single person who has chimed in so far has agreed with my position, I would really, sincerely appreciate your input in explaining why you think it is reasonable. The consensus for my position is so overwhelming that it's turned into a bit of a circle jerk, so some dissent from a respected editor would be welcome and appropriate.

Thanks. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 03:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Philomathes2357 "Every single person" is "both editors", only two. And as you've been reverted by 3 editors, you really need to stop until the RfC is finished as continuing what you have turned into an edit war would not be a good idea. Note that no one has removed the phrase but you. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, someone else made the same point, and I said "If someone reverts my edit again, I won't proceed any further with an edit-war, I'll focus on the RFC" Philomathes2357 ( talk) 17:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Doug!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree with Rhododendrites. Since I never really participated in FB, "the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all." I join both Rhododendrites and Johnbod above on their (and mine) wishes to you and your family for joyful Holidays and a happy New Year. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 20:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean to block 2a00:1a20::/32 without anon-only? I have an unblock request from a user in good standing (happy to point you to it privately) who is affected by this block. Note that I have not used my checkuser tools to investigate so it's entirely possible the block should restrict signed-in users. -- Yamla ( talk) 10:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Yamla if there's no overlap, feel free to change the block. My PC may be out of action shortly, expecting some work to be done on it any minute now. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the investigation and if (but only if) there's no overlap, I'll modify the block. Thanks, Doug! -- Yamla ( talk) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock of my ip, @ Doug Weller. Guess, I was caught in the crossfire with a recent ip range block. Best, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 21:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Qwerty284651 sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem, Doug. It happens to anyone. Get well soon. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Doug, you should look at the diffs of the reverts you made at Talk:History of calculus. I don't think that they achieved what you intended to achieve. Spinning Spark 20:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Especially as one who has had surgery and a few other health problems recently, I understand the ensuing fatigue as well as the need to concentrate on recovery. Best wishes on getting well soon. Donner60 ( talk) 02:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Your dedication to editing through your health challenges is admirable. Just know that your hard work is extremely valuable and we are all grateful for your work. Andre 🚐 23:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 09:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 20:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller,

I hope you're doing well (under the circumstances), & happy holidays. If you have a moment, could you perhaps take a look at [47] and consider RevDel on BLP grounds?

Thanks, JBL ( talk) 19:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@ JayBeeEll done. I’m ok, under the circumstances, a bit of liver cancer left and a bit of lung cancer. Not going to beat me. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Be well, & kick its butt, JBL ( talk) 23:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Congratulation first, since I think we can say you beat it! That's because colon cancer is gone, and there is really no need to worry about two small bits in the liver and lung. What an amazing feat! And very Happy Holidays for you and your family, you all have reason to be really celebrating it now. warshy ^(¥¥) 00:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That news is, mostly, a wonderful New Year's gift to us all, here on wikipedia. Even for pagans like myself (respect for linguistic tradition is important) all I can say is, God bless. Nishidani ( talk) 08:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe ( talk) 20:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^{⋠ T⋡} 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Things will be interesting, at least.    — The Transhumanist   16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the discussion thread at VP (policy) about the potential and potential danger of content generation on Wikipedia by large language models and the applications based on them, such as ChatGPT, you mentioned that you had contacted the WMF board.

How?

I didn't see anything from you on VP (WMF) or meta.

Please be specific.

I'd like to read all related discussions, if at all possible.

Thanks.    — The Transhumanist   16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The Transhumanist I contacted Maggie Dennis[ https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/maggie-dennis/]. In fact I just mentioned it again to her. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool. What was it that you told her about the issue? What specifics did you cover?    — The Transhumanist   18:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The Transhumanist pointed her to the thread and some articles. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you. After she's read through the information, what happens next?    — The Transhumanist   18:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The Transhumanist I’m sure she’ll talk to the relevant people. But i think that’s all I’ll b able to say unless I can report any public knowledge. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The Transhumanist See [ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ALV3QLKTB7RWCCR5W4HNDA4ZDG5ARRDC/] and [ https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg39285.html]. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Doug Weller: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

 Courtesy link:  WP:VPT § How to abuse your watchlist
Just because fairly often, I can't find a conversation of interest to me even a few short days later, especially if the topic I recall ("Vivaldi", in this case) isn't part of the section title on the page where it appeared. Other possibly useful links from there: mw:Talk:Who Wrote That? and the Vivaldi help forum. Mathglot ( talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Mathglot thanks. I a, not sure if I’ll keep it but I’ve got it set up now. So far so good although it’s complicated. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A bit, perhaps, like any new tool, but it's hard for me to imagine now going back to Chrome or any of the other browsers. For me, the killer feature is tab handling; if you've ever had 70 tabs open in three browser instances and tried to keep track of what's what and where, this is the only one I know that makes that manageable. Which in turn, allows me to keep better organized, accomplish more, and context-switch more easily, which is important in paying attention to widely separated types of subtasks I try to attend to on Wikipedia. I still use other browsers, but mostly for other, non-WP tasks. Am I a Wikiholic, if RL seems like only a subset? Mathglot ( talk) 20:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Mathglot Lol! Three browser instances? How and why? Just run it three times I presume?And can you shut one down without losing your tabs? I occasionally find I have two instances of Chrome, shut down the main one and then when I shut down the other and reopen Chrome, it only opens the last instance and I’ve lost the rest of my tabs. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just run it three times; I think I max out at about five browser instances, but two or three is more typical. But that's not specific to Vivaldi, you can do that with Chrome or any browser. But Vivaldi has many advantages, especially in tab handling; too many to list here. One of the great features of Vivaldi tab handling is you can name and save a group of tabs, either all windows, by individual window, or by selecting just the tabs you want. I mostly do the latter, so for example, I have named profiles for tab sets for various Wikipedia projects I'm working on, which you can see an example of at this Vivaldi saved tabs example. But that's just one of the benefits. Mathglot ( talk) 22:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Mathglot getting on ok except that pinned tabs, ie the ones I want all the time, are squashed in the left hand corner and even hovering over them gives me no clue what each one is. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agh, its usage just shot up to 6600 mb. Shutting it down, reopened at 1850. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Several ways to deal with that. Probably the easiest is by hovering over the tab you are interested in—it should pop up a large thumbnail image of the page, with the title and url listed in the footer area. Presumably you are not pinning so many tabs that you can't remember them by position, right? If you are, consider stacking them, instead of pinning them; that will keep the first one visible by name with the others stacked underneath in a second level of horizontally arranged tabs. Conversely, keep your most important tabs at the left unpinned and at full width, and then stack the remaining tabs by theme, so you have your important tabs individually at the left, then your tab stacks to their right, each with as many tabs under them as you like. Another way, is to click the show/hide panel icon bottom left (◨) to show the left sidebar panel by default, and then click the window icon (🗔) in the sidebar panel to display the list of windows (which is also searchable, if you have a lot of them). Or use the 'Window' menu item to list all the windows in a drop-down. (I set my preferences to hide the menu bar; instead, I view the menu items by clicking the Vivaldi icon top left, which displays the menu items vertically in a drop down; this gives me a slightly taller viewport, plus I just prefer it that way.)

I don't actually use pinned tabs, myself, but if I did, I would probably include: 1. Google books search; 2. TWL; 3. WorldCat; 4. My local library online database search page. I think with just four of them, I'd learn them positionally pretty quickly. Mathglot ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller,

There is a serious, widespread problem of spam of certain unreliable sources in a variety of articles about religion. You can read about *part* of the problem here (where we have been discussing mostly about ARDA/WRD/WCD, which we have demonstrated to be related to certain Protestant Christian missionary organisations).

Here, however, I want to begin a discussion about another part of the problem, which is represented by articles like " Christianity#Demographics", " Christian population growth", " Growth of religion", " Christians", " Christianity by country", etc., which have been deeply modified using an intricate network of sources which include those we have been discussing, plus even worse ones (a mix of biased research [often related to the very same aforementioned organisations] and completely unreliable websites). For instance, you can see that the number of Christians has been artificially augmented over the years to 2.8 billion based on an entry by Rebecca Denova, whom does not cite her sources and probably mistyped the number, and the unreliable website Countrymeters; while the latest global estimate of Christians was that made by the Pew Research Center in 2010 which put the number at c. 2.1 billion.

Most of this work has been done over the years by someone who I strongly suspect is (actually, I am certain is) a user you banned some years ago, who continues to be active through a network of IPs and sockpuppets (you can find recent edits in the aforementioned articles which are exactly in the same style as the edits of that user). What can we do with these articles? They are completely compromised, given that hardly anyone will be able to consult those intricate networks of sources and website to verify the information: the article " Christianity" could be cleaned up of the controversial content; the articles " Christian population growth" and " growth of religion", and others, which are basically WP:UNENCYC (no reputable encyclopedia has articles for "growth of religion", "Christian population growth", etc.), WP:CFORK of one another and WP:JUNK, could be deleted. Æo ( talk) 12:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Æo who did I ban? I think this needs to be taken to a different noticeboard. Still recovering from major liver cancer surgery and don't have the energy or time to do this, wish I did. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The user is Jobas, the user who had that "technical problem" with which he hid his major edits. I remember that user very well. He edited the very same articles listed above, he apparently returned in the recent past, and he has apparently returned once again:

• 2A0D:6FC7:408:4100:2A:85F0:3A55:27F7
• 2.54.186.129
• Kfager1

The edits of these IPs and account are consistent with the original Jobas account and the most recent sockpuppets found.

P.S. Apologies, but I didn't notice forthwith the tag and messages about your health issue. I hope you are recovering well from surgery.-- Æo ( talk) 16:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Æo thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

Do you think we may have a friend whose main aim is to become extended-confirmed? JBW ( talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ JBW sorry, not sure who you mean. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ JBW aha, yes, I think you may be right. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be so cryptic. I thought it would be more obvious what I meant. Whenever I see a brand new account starting out by making very large numbers of totally trivial edits in quick succession, I wonder. The suspicion increases if the editor shows reluctance to do anything at all which might slow down their edit count build up, such as responding to messages, writing edit summaries, etc. This doesn't happen at all frequently, but when it does, I find there's a very good chance that the editor will reach extended confirmed and then edit in a way which before long leads to a block. JBW ( talk) 12:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ JBW agreed. I'd simply forgotten. The short and also trivial edit summaries are a clue here also I think. I've removed ECP from a couple of editors in the last few months. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it may have been a mistake blocking now. There's a risk that the effect may be just to prompt the editor to make a new account and this time be more careful, having lost only a few days out of 30. Probably better to wait until the 30 days are up or nearly up, so they have to either give up or start another 30 days. Oh well, too late now.

I hope your recovery from the surgery is going well. I had some surgery in June, which did not go as well as the surgeon had expected, leaving me with unforeseen consequences which I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life. Better luck to you. JBW ( talk) 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ JBW thanks. My recovery is going ok, hampered by calf muscle problems though. But the liver surgery missed some cancer cells by mms and I've got lung cancer. I doubt I'll have more ops though as I was told if one team didn't want to operate the other won't. Still I'm optimistic.

Yeah, they may make another account. I don't see a focus that would help find them, and I can't CU at random. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ JBW Sorry, I see I forgot to say how sorry I am to hear about the outcome of your surgery, that seems very unfortunate. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, I am former IP Editor (102.217.80.26) who wrote to you before about the 'Ancient Egyptian race controversy' page and everything was sorted, so thank you for that. Anyway, I have recently created an account so I can better edit and watch specific pages. This article in particular 'Haplogroup E-Z827' has been heavily vandalised. I would like to request if you could restore the version to '11:56, 31 July 2022‎' https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haplogroup_E-Z827&action=history As you can see, and IP Editor came in and removed so much credible data, I implore you or any other established User Editors to bring back all that content. Cheers! I am also very sorry for the major surgery you are undergoing, I just had no idea who to turn to on this platform. The Watchlist Editor ( talk) 12:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Doug,

I noticed that my Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Rosa_(Mesoamerican_Site) was recently revised by you as having an “unclear citation style.” Would you be able to expound on that? What is unclear about the citation style? Is there a better or different way I should do it?

Thank you. Eman2223 ( talk) 09:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Eman2223 see Help:Referencing for beginners. It's a really great source. Also it's better to call it the page you created as no one owns a page. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I formatted the reference list based off of what I have seen on other Wikipedia pages, as well as what I read in the link you sent "Referencing for beginners."

I will take another look.

Thank you.

Side note: I couldn't help but read some previous responses on your talk page. I hope you are receiving all the medical care you need. Best of wishes. Eman2223 ( talk) 09:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Eman2223 Thanks. More chemo ahead. But I'll handle it. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Happy New Year! I hope all is as well with you as can be expected under the circumstances, and hope you are getting all the expert medical care you deserve.

I'm just spitballing here. I am wondering about a common problem, long discussed but rarely acted on, of the time sink created by most IP editors. Could we at least make it a bit more difficult for them? There are so many who disrupt that we cannot justify doing nothing just because there are a few who actually make good edits. Those who make good edits can be considered good faith editors who should care enough to create an account if pressed. If not, they are unreasonable and we can do without them.

When I look at my long watchlist (currently at 3,954 pages, down from over 10,000), all I have to do is look at the edits from IP editors, and 90% of the time it's a disruptive edit. Many slip through without correction. That's a serious problem.

How about making a couple hoops for IP editors to hop through before an edit can be made? Make them hop through those hoops for every single edit. Maybe a time delay before their next edit? Is that feasible? Another option is to semi-protect all controversial topics. When an application for protection has been made, it should be applied for a year, but that is also problematic as the article will immediately become a target for disruption again after that year, so why not make it an indefinite semi-protection immediately? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would second all of that; most of all, the hope that you are doing well and continuing to get better.

I'd be interested to see where this discussion goes as my experience has been similar (and, I would assume, not an outlier). ButlerBlog ( talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think many editors "at the coal face" would agree, but there are those who put great store by the "anyone can edit" thing, and imagine folk of good faith just dropping by idly to improve an article. As if. One thing is the lack of tech smarts in the system -- if an IP making edits is reverted (twice say), there should be some kind kind of temp block put on the address automatically. There are probably a lot of software things which could be done to improve matters. Bon courage ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the "anyone can edit" thing is widely misunderstood. Even if everyone is required to create an account, anyone can still edit. There is no rule that says such a requirement would violate "anyone can edit". I like that idea of an automatic temp block. The most damaging "blatant" ("sneaky" edits can be more damaging) type of IP edits are mass attacks of myriad articles in quick succession. They can keep many editors busy for hours. Something should automatically block that possibility. Can we start a list of ideas here? Feel free to add to it.

Interesting info here: Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Standard_user_rights_that_are_granted_automatically -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Bon courage@ Butlerblog@ Valjean I think that the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or maybe better the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) would be more appropriate. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is a preliminary step to gain insights and wisdom in preparation for that next step. Proposals that are defective and/or not well prepared tend to get shot down. Taking a knife to a gunfight would be foolish. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Still thinking about the best way forward. Some IPs are great. Some are, I suspect, accounts logged out. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a question. When an IP is blocked, that (could) presumably blocks a registered user who is logging out to edit. Isn't such a situation detectable by our software? If so, should it automatically notify admins that the registered user should be blocked for evasion and misuse of two accounts? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That situation is discussed at WP:IPBE. Abusively editing while logged out is something that is typically dealt with by WP:SPI. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Valjean, why would you presume that? I don't presume that at all. I assume that there are many more unregistered users than registered one, and who feel anonymous and inviolate behind their IPs, able to create whatever mischief they wish. Mathglot ( talk) 10:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. What presumption are you referring to? Is it about the IP block also blocking a registered user? If so, I have added "could" above. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Idea list

1. Time delay between each edit
2. Automatic temp block

		The Detective Barnstar
		In recognition of your continued effort looking into fringe content and posting at the fringe theories noticeboard. This is important work that shouldn't be overlooked. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I second this! Also for your work quietly identifying and blocking some of our most disruptive sockmasters again and again and again. It's truly appreciated. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear User:Doug Weller, I noticed your template on the top of your talk page that you are recovering after a surgery and I hope that you feel better soon. Your friend, Anupam ^Talk 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've written a summary of the Chatbot discussion over at the Village pump (policy).

You might want to send the section link to your contact at the WMF, in case she found the whole TLDR.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   02:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The Transhumanist done. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear the good news Doug. I hope the calf muscle problem goes away soon and you can resume your full level exercising too. Cheers! warshy ^(¥¥) 17:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: I just read about your prostate cancer in the comments on your talk page. I hope that they were able to remove all of the cancer, and that with chemotherapy and radiation treatments, you will return back to normal good health in no time! P.S.: Hospital food sucks!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 01:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Saved by God's grace: thanks. But as I did mention, and I’m not surprised you missed it, it turned out not to be necessary. But my liver cancer surgery left some cancer cells by a few mm and there’s cancer cells in my lung. I hope to hear Thursday what’s next but I am pretty sure it will be more chemo. I‘d prefer that to a two more surgeries which is the alternative. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Responded, and created a new TP discussion on the proposed change, if you support, and no material consensus against comes up, then please revert the revert and we can let it stand as BCE/CE for that particular article. TY — Moops ^{⋠ T⋡} 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Erm, sir? I tried to be as on point here as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Parody_religion&oldid=prev&diff=1128552774 The original poster asked for discussion and I tried to defy his arguments precisely. If you don't want the answers to a post, then what's the point of leaving the post itself? Slamazzar ( talk) 03:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment you were replying to was brief and on-topic (it related to a discussion about the content of the article). Your reply was four years too late and was not related to article content (meaning the text that should be in the article). See WP:NOTFORUM. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that change. Donald Albury 13:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Chemo, which I expect, might put something similar back (well, Bish might) for the last 3 or 4 weeks, but otherwise I'm pretty much ok now. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Good! Best wishes for the correct outcome! Donald Albury 13:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This page. Best wishes -- Jibal ( talk) 09:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is Requesting review regarding User:Anthonydevolder block. Thank you. Moncrief ( talk) 01:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note the comment from User:Bagumba (and subsequent comments) at the bottom of that page. I hope you will consider that next time before requesting a review. Jibal ( talk) 09:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to make you aware of unpleasant comments directed at you: [56]. The comment seems to have been deleted fortunately. 77.241.232.28 ( talk) 03:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Another idiot. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: just wondering if you meant to write "insightful"? I only raise it because "inciteful" can have negative connotations in certain contexts (in this one, it's kind of ambiguous but still seems like an unusual choice). isaacl ( talk) 17:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked it up first. but it seemed correct, no mention of negative connotations. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Inciting is sometimes used to describing rousing people into conflict ("inciting a confrontation") but can also be used to describe other types of action ("inciting a resolve to improve"). Unusual of course doesn't mean wrong; if you wanted to describe the comments in question as ones that stir you into action, that's great! isaacl ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Isaacl thanks. I also at times get confused about whether I'm dealing being confused about American or British English usage of words, just as I tend to write "favor" and wonder if, as I live in England, I should write "favour". Doug Weller talk 08:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you are giving wrong information regarding articles about Sparta. Please get informed from Greek sources or ask me to help you understand your mistakes, it is very important because in Greece the researchers have a different opinion and not the wrong one you have about ancient Greece. I don't know where all this is coming from but you are in the wrong direction. Thank you and be aware that things change, regarding the wrong information it is certainly not your fault but before publication and that you should ask the source which is the Greeks and the ancient texts, I hope you understand what I am saying and do not misunderstand our discussion and my intentions, because my intentions are good and based on the knowledge of the truth and not just to fill pages with wrong information from people and academics who either have incorrect or fraudulent information or write according to their own way of perceiving things and not our ancestors ! I hope you understood the need for me to correct your texts. They have apsolutely necative form...Things are changing, please let me help! Thanks Ioannis1963 ( talk) 14:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

this is my page https://www.facebook.com/ancientelleniccivilization Ioannis1963 ( talk) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Ioannis1963 if you think that some sources should not be used please discuss them at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 from me, especially about the grace under fire, especially now. The people who have been performatively virtue-signaling in their complaining should get a clue. Best, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And +1 from me. - Donald Albury 01:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

+1. Good lord. Some people. Carlstak ( talk) 03:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion did spiral a bit, didn't it. I was the first person to ask about the block (both on the account talk page and here), but I think it's worth noting I then counseled waiting for Doug's response before the community did anything else! —Ganesha811 ( talk) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Ganesha811 And I appreciate that. Doug Weller talk 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I'm curious why you blocked Anthonydevolder. Clearly the account/page is getting some attention right now, but which part of the username policy does the account violate? When it was created, Anthony Devolder was not anyone famous enough to impersonate, and even now the man is far better known as George Santos. Is there another issue besides potential 'impersonation' at play? —Ganesha811 ( talk) 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MISLEADNAME. It doesn't matter when it was created, it violates policy. He iro 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this misleading or impersonation? If the account does belong to George Santos, it's part of his legal name and fair enough. If it doesn't belong to George Santos, it was created in 2011 when George Santos was not remotely famous enough to be impersonated, and even now he's far better known as George Santos. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's really him he can file a ticket at OTRS. If it's not him then it's a violation of MISLEADNAME. He iro 22:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like the account was created in 2011, but never made any edits at all. My understanding of the username policy is that a username that's identical now to a real person in the news is not permitted now, so the block is policy-compliant, but the user could be able to edit by changing to a different username. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's really him (very likely it is), several of his accounts have been blocked for violating various policies (such as editing his own Wikipedia page with a COI), and this account should be blocked accordingly for sockpuppetry. Muhibm0307 ( talk) 00:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it was his bio on his talk page, I don't see how it's a COI & don't see how it'd be sockpuppetry. ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison ( talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Heiro, how often do we deal with people creating impersonation accounts for call centre customer service representatives? I'm guessing never. Santos was that at the point when the account was created. There is absolutely, positively no evidence that MISLEADNAME applies. -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute, how is the 11 year old user name "Anthony Devolder" any more misleading than your user name or my user name? ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison ( talk) 02:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

MISLEADNAME. Huh, given that there are multiple Doug Weller's in the world, aren't you as much impersonating another Doug Weller with your name as whoever created this account (if not Santos) was "impersonating" the other equally-not-famous-at-the-time person who used that name?

I truly hope you made a bad call here and was not trying to cover up the existence of the user page with improper motivation. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@ SecretName101 that’s nonsense and shows bad faith. What kind of improper motivation are you accusing me of? Doug Weller talk 22:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@ SecretName101 Waiting for an answer. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m hopeful that it wasn’t improper reason. I think the obvious improperly reason would be to bury something that could generate bad PR for George Santos. Because the next step after blocking would be to blank/remove from viewing the improper edits in question. Assuming this was an honest mistake, Please do due diligence in the future before blocking entire accounts without even providing them with a single warning. SecretName101 ( talk) 09:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's standard procedure. The fact that there is a lot of excitement is due to the person involved. The only people puzzled by the actions taken by Doug Weller are those unfamiliar with standard procedure. The wrong template might have been used but that's it (see the current block notice). Johnuniq ( talk) 09:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with @ Ganesha811 - I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but this does not seem like the proper application of the username policy. This situation does not fit anything in that section. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I just brought up the issue on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard (pardon lack of direct link to section; new layout seems to have hidden TOC section links) Thanks for your work and attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 00:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, this is the umptieth place I've posted about this :) Last night, literally just before going to sleep, I was on my iPad and saw the userpage. I went and looked and somehow didn't see the date and thought was current, maybe a joke, maybe malicious, who knows. Anyway, I did what I did. It was a mistake. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a user page for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. Anyway, I've already unsuppressed and unblocked. The Disney thing had me convinced it was a hoax and an attack on Santos. He may be a (insert epithet of your choice here) but we don't allow attack pages aimed at anyone. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation, Doug - makes sense! —Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @ Doug Weller that makes more sense now. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:HandthatFeeds

Digital Herodotus went ahead and opened an ANI about me. Since you were mentioned there, I felt you should know. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 19:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and I understand that you may have some concerns about the information on talk page. If you have any specific points that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to have a conversation with you about them. However, I kindly request that you refrain from Reverting on the talk page as it is intended for scholars to use for referencing purposes. If you could please reach out to me directly, we can discuss any concerns or questions you may have in more detail. Thank you Rs Ekanayake 02:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of article talk pages. They are to be used for discussing improvements to the article, and are not fora for general discussions of the topic of the article or other topics. If you want to suggest reliable sources to be used in improving an article, you can use Template:Refideas. If you want to suggest changes to be made in the text of an article, be specific on what you want to change. Donald Albury 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. I'm M.T I am writing this article based on a trusted group of books.why are you deleting my posts. M.Tecnictable ( talk) 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@ M.Tecnictable because you aren’t citing sources. We can’t read your mind and now what sources you are using. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a kitten for you to help speed up your recovery! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 14:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In the article Akron-Summit County Public Library, references #4 and #5 (Director and Staff) in the infobox need to be archived, and I do not not know how to do that. Any help that you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated!!!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 14:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Saved by God's grace they are both to out of date, but I found a new one for the director, or rather executive director. I couldn't find one for staff and think it should be removed, it's not that important anyway. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You!!!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 16:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I an editor? KyZan ( talk) 12:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Ky'Zan'

@ KyZan I'm not sure what you mean. If you've ever posted anything on Wikipedia anywhere, yes. Why do you ask? Doug Weller talk 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a "contributor" is different from an "editor". Is this true? KyZan ( talk) 23:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Editor", "User", "Contributor", and probably other terms I can't think of right now, are used interchangeably in this Wikipedia. Anyone who edits Wikipedia is an editor. Donald Albury 01:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll always be one of the greatest editors of all time Doug. Thanks for everything you do.

Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 08:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being the first administrator I ever encountered on Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there DW. I noticed you removed the Category:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems from the Voynich system. I'm not entirely sure I endorse that but I'm not actually challenging the removal. Rather, looking at that category after finding it via your edit, I saw Rohonc Codex was in it, which has the exact same issue in that we can't state definitively it is a writing system but remains. Between Voynich and Rohonc thats half the (previously) 4 items in the category. And I do think these two are what people would expect to find in the category, even if the title's full accuracy isnt known, which leads me to a couple questions- Do you think I'm right on that thought? And if so, is there a better way to phrase the category name so it can best match reader expectations while also passing encyclopedic muster? I do think that's at least somewhat important for navigation tools to match reader expectation vs articles doing the same and so would prefer to rename the category to something that would allow Voynich and Rohonc. My first thought is to just remove the writing system bit to become Category:Undeciphered manuscripts but wanted to have a discussion before doing so just to make sure I'm firmly grounded and not making things up in my head. -- (loopback) ping/ whereis 14:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@ 127(point)0(point)0(point)1 actually that sounds like a good idea, as they are both definitely undeciphered and manuscripts. I note that Rohane Codex also has no sources for being unequivocally a writing system and indeed suggests it's a code. Benedek Láng has written a university press book on the Codex [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Rohonc_Code/frMmEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0] and this article.[ https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1326451/FULLTEXT02.pdf#page=67] if you want to see some English sources (which would help). I don't see how the image of a library description in a language few of our readers can read helps in its article. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll probably migrate the category tonight when I'm back online. If anyone objects at that point there can be a larger discussion somewhere. I appreciate the sanity check. Not for nothing, but you have the same name as my father. I've seen you here going back years and years and never really interacted when I had the chance because that always unsettled me. I read some of your talkpage and just wanted to say I regret that now. You've done amazing work both here and in general and I wish I had told you that earlier. Thanks for being awesome. -- (loopback) ping/ whereis 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work in Wikipedia, especially on Indigenous subjects. They are appreciated! Yuchitown ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug. On Jan 29 I made an entry on the Talk page of Non-binary gender. A few hours later, User:RoxySaunders deleted my entry and left a message on my Talk page, giving me a lecture but not informing me she had deleted my comments at Talk:Non-binary gender. Last night I went back to that Talk page and found that Roxy had deleted my comments of Jan 29. I then asked her about this, but in spite of her answer I believe her deletion of my comments at Talk:Non-binary gender was in violation of the WP:Talk page guidelines. The guidelines make it pretty clear that we are not supposed to go around deleting other users' Talk entries unless there is a damn good reason for it, which there was not in this case. Her reason was basically that she didn't like what I said. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Sardaka ( talk) 11:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "With the pic of Judith Butler, the caption refers to her as "themself". If JB likes to refer to herself as themself, that is her prerogative, but there is no reason why we have to indulge her. It is not up to WP, or in the job description of WP, to go along with every trend that comes along. (Now play the race card or any other card that seems to fit. The PC brigade have a card for every occasion." So besides lack of good faith it looks to me like a violation of the talk page guidelines that say "Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it." Doug Weller talk 11:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you revdel this change please?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pete_Winkelman&diff=1137785545&oldid=1137784436&diffmode=source

Possibly the pair before it too?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pete_Winkelman&diff=1137784436&oldid=1115030012&diffmode=source

Both are WP:BLP violations, diff=1137785545 being unarguably libellous. TYVM 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@ John Maynard Friedman done, blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

TYVM. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 19:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Doug Weller! I was on the fence as to whether remove or keep the recent short tirade about "censorship" on Talk:American Thinker and am glad you did; I actually removed it and then reverted myself given it was the talk page and not the actual article. As someone committed to keeping the quality of articles high and exchanges civil, but with editing experience of only 2 or so years and a lot to learn still, I am quite happy to know page patrolling does in fact extend to talk pages. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91 Thanks. Most talk page headers explain this. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Right, I guess this was my very long way of saying that your action clarified WP:NOTESSAY in the context of talk page topics. Anyway, thanks again. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Forum/chatroom posts can be a problem and too often include personal ayyacks etc. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Doug, you're a legend and we all appreciate your great work. Andre 🚐 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I certainly want to endorse this one! Thank you Doug, and thank you Andrevan! warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Doug Weller! I was on the fence as to whether remove or keep the recent short tirade about "censorship" on Talk:American Thinker and am glad you did; I actually removed it and then reverted myself given it was the talk page and not the actual article. As someone committed to keeping the quality of articles high and exchanges civil, but with editing experience of only 2 or so years and a lot to learn still, I am quite happy to know page patrolling does in fact extend to talk pages. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91 Thanks. Most talk page headers explain this. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Right, I guess this was my very long way of saying that your action clarified WP:NOTESSAY in the context of talk page topics. Anyway, thanks again. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Forum/chatroom posts can be a problem and too often include personal ayyacks etc. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Doug, you're a legend and we all appreciate your great work. Andre 🚐 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I certainly want to endorse this one! Thank you Doug, and thank you Andrevan! warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Doug Weller! I was on the fence as to whether remove or keep the recent short tirade about "censorship" on Talk:American Thinker and am glad you did; I actually removed it and then reverted myself given it was the talk page and not the actual article. As someone committed to keeping the quality of articles high and exchanges civil, but with editing experience of only 2 or so years and a lot to learn still, I am quite happy to know page patrolling does in fact extend to talk pages. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91 Thanks. Most talk page headers explain this. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Right, I guess this was my very long way of saying that your action clarified WP:NOTESSAY in the context of talk page topics. Anyway, thanks again. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Forum/chatroom posts can be a problem and too often include personal ayyacks etc. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Doug, you're a legend and we all appreciate your great work. Andre 🚐 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I certainly want to endorse this one! Thank you Doug, and thank you Andrevan! warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

User talk: Gamaliel has been semi-protected indefinitely since 2016. Time to drop the protection? Politrukki ( talk) 00:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Politrukki Why ask me and not User:Gamaliel? Doug Weller talk 08:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why avoid the question? Are you going to dismiss the request as the protecting admin without explanation? Perhaps you have a perfectly valid reason for the protection that I know nothing about. Politrukki ( talk) 10:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@ PolitrukkiI'm not the one avoiding the question- your response has avoided my question. In fact it's something Gamaliell can do himself, so ask him to remove it. Please don't bother me again with something he can do. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean so many edits occur at same time how do you do that??? and how to remove these irritating “mobile edit” “advanced mobile edit” etc tags. RamaKrishnaHare ( talk) 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

i too want to be like you 😁 RamaKrishnaHare ( talk) 14:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to be like Doug, first of all stop calling good faith edits with a clear rationale in the edit summary "vandalism" [64]. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Considering this assertion was evidently false, and the scholars confirmed it, it's essential to enlighten readers on that. You may use "inaccurately" "incorrectly" or "erroneously", but, it's not in any way unencyclopedic to acknowledge the fact. StarkReport ( talk) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@ StarkReport This is for the talk page please. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Astrid-divine-empress ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @ Existence of God this user seems to be doing some kind of phishing or looking for editors' IP addresses under the guise of being an incompetent editor here to promote an WP:OR "proof" of God. I have redacted (refactored?) their Google Docs links (afaik you can see which users and possibly IP addresses visit the doc) from talk pages but there are still revisions such as [65] that have external links. I've submitted an WP:AIV for this promotion-only spam account, as best as I can classify it, but I think damage control sooner than later would be good. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I can’t see it. Email me. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Should've used email in the first place I guess, not accustomed to situations where it would be appropriate. —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there. I noticed that you undid my recent edits on myth, describing them as "major unexplained changes." I would like to inform you that I did in fact leave an edit summary stating that I felt that a description of what a myth is is more appropriate for a lead paragraph than to address the academia-related controversies. Please elaborate on your concerns regarding my edits, less I restore the first edit that I made, although the paragraph addressing the controversy will be placed second in the article.

Additionally, may I ask that you use {{Re|GOLDIEM J}} when replying to me so that I can be notified of your reply as I abstain from using my watchlist. Thank you. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 13:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@ GOLDIEM J I may well have been wrong but this sort of discussion belongs on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@ GOLDIEM J You made 4 edits on that page recently, only one of them having an edit summary. It says, "More appropriate for lead". I think that may well be called "unexplained". I'd suggest you follow Doug's suggestion and start a discussion on that article's talk page (and I'd also like to suggest being a bit more communicative in future edit summaries). Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Journal investigating Sodom comet paper for data problems Retraction Watch Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Fascinating. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I was looking on Everipedia, and found this on the archive. ^[1] Thoughts? Wolfquack ( talk) 17:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Wolfquack ( talk) 17:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, added by this community banned editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive, who for some reason, although I was a real pain in his butt, was willing to rewrite the first version which was not good at all to one that was fine. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, well you sure look like a happy guy though :D cheers Wolfquack ( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Though this reminds me of what a strange place the internet is, you may be friends on reddit but enemies on twitter. Wolfquack ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Until reading it, I hadn't realised that, as a long-term Birmingham resident myself once, we'd been neighbours. I have a sister-in-law in Derbyshire and used to walk in the hillier bits of the county... I guess maintaining WP anonymity keeps down serendipitous chat! Sweetpool50 ( talk) 18:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Sweetpool50 It does indeed. When I joined Wikipedia I’d already been active debunking fraudulent archaeology on Usenet and wanted to be identified with that so that anyone who knew me from there would recognise me here. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this, and this, in an effort to avoid further, similar disruption might a formal warning from an administrator (as opposed to a non-admin like me) be appropriate at this point? The editor evinces an apparent motivation for those unhelpful posts here. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax Two admins now. Let me know if it continues. [70] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Doug, we could really use someone of your stature (experience, knowledge, position, and demeanor) to weigh-in and provide guidance on this discussion at Scott Adams. There's really only one major diagreement: whether the characterization of the comments ("racist") should be in Wikipedia's voice or not. If I'm off base in my thinking, please feel fee to say that and I'll gladly stand down. I'm sure there are things you could teach all of us about handling a polarizing content dispute like this. What are we missing or misunderstanding? Thanks for your consideration, even if you're not able to help out with this. I know you must be really busy. Stoarm ( talk) 14:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Stoarm sorry, I really don't have time to deal with a complex argument, I'm doing a lot of research for an article on racism and archaeology - and as you can see above, I don't know how much time I'll have or how the chemo I start tomorrow will effect me. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Too bad that Wikipedia will certainly miss an important argument in this discussion. I do hope and wish you that the possible bad effects of the chemo are greatly outweighed by the positive ones. Above all, I hope you feel good and peaceful in your mind. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Doug. I agree with warshy, though, your valuable input will be missed. If there are any other editors who have your kind of standing and knowledge on this particular debate (Wikipedia's voice or not), perhaps you could pass the word on to them to drop into the discussion to educate us about the right path. I'm very sorry, I wasn't aware of your personal situation; I had only seen your post on the Adams talk page, then browsed your history and user page. I realized that you would be a perfect person to provide some input. Best regards. Stoarm ( talk) 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I adjusted your block slightly. You blocked User:DawsonZoBell from the Book of Mohism when I think you meant to block the user from Book of Mormon. :) IronGargoyle ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ IronGargoyle lol. Thanks, need to clean my glasses! Doug Weller talk 21:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Doug, I understand that you are starting chemotherapy today/tomorrow. I truly hope for the best possible outcome. I will be thinking of you. Cullen328 ( talk) 20:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Cullen328 thanks. Yes, starting tomorrow morning. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Good wishes from me as well. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

+ Me too. Very best wishes. DeCausa ( talk) 21:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My wife had an extremely rare form of cancer, one of only two known cases in Europe, and incurable. Nonetheless, after surgery, chemotherapy bestowed on her a further full two years of reasonable health and serenity. I can only hope that, at a minimum, your own cycle extends you at least that grace. Best Nishidani ( talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Nishidani I’m very sorry to hear about your wife, that must have been terrible for you and her. I know how much I worry about my wife having to cope with my diagnosis. But I plan to fight on and not go gentle into that good night. I shall rage as much as I can against the dying of the light. Doug Weller talk 21:35 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I was diffident about confiding that, Doug, - you've enough grief on your plate without news of others -but in the end thought I should if only because it bears witness to what chemo can do, and might give you heart (though you have that in abundance), To ring a chime on your poetical allusion, we can all only wish you mehr Licht. Best to you both. Nishidani ( talk) 22:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, Doug. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read many times that laughter is the best medicine. In that spirit, I send you this wonderful dose of the entertainingly unfathomable. Remember him? You and I briefly interacted with this fellow back in 2018 (see here), and to this day I fondly remember the experience. Truly, we all need a brain mechanic, but if the guy also happens to be a spiritual synthesizer with ripped abs? Sunlightenment! JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax thank you! Reading your response made me literally laugh out loud! Doug Weller talk 17:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know if you recall this episode from last summer, but I thought I'd let you know the editor seems to have tried again, e.g. [71]. No big bird yet, but they're adding the template to languages that don't appear in the UNESCO Atlas. I already left them a talk page message, but figured you might appreciate a heads up. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Botterweg14 Same editor. Here’s the old discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Possible bot assisted indiscriminate addition of a template by an IP. Could you raise the issue there? I’m going to impose a 31 hour block from article space so they will still be able to post to ANI, I Don’t want to give them a chance to do more damage. Let them know obviously if you go to ani. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I see you added DS to the Talk:Mpox page last year. You'd just removed some homophobic text on the talk page. While the topic was in the news last year, it has mostly disappeared from the press, so I think the risk of it being a target for homophobic comments is reduced. I'm sure it is best to have fewer articles with extra threat-baggage on them as possible. Do you think that could be removed now and the topic treated like any other disease. -- Colin° ^Talk 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Doug, I sat on our deck the other night, bundled up to fight the cold and stared up at the stars as the Aurora moved overhead like a ribbon blown in the wind, the colors alternating from bright green to deep red and purple. I was reminded in that moment how small we are. We cling to this "tiny speck of dust suspended in a ray of sunshine", a place where everyone we have ever known, and countless others, has existed. It is a place and history that has caused so many debates, wars (edit and actual), and has been the cause of so much pain and suffering. Yet it is also the place of hopes and dreams, where every song was ever written, every masterpiece was ever painted and every poem flowed from the mind of its creator. It is where I have met some of the most amazing people I have ever known in this little Wikipedia corner of that speck, not the least of which is you.

As I sat and watched those stars I listened and in the not so far distance I heard a wolf howl. I thought of you. Your journey through this painful struggle has been more than difficult and I know at times you must have felt alone, I know I have, much like this seemingly lone wolf calling to the Aurora above, a call that was caught up by the wind sweeping across the valley. I strained to listen and to my amazement I heard an answer, far off in the distance. Another wolf answering the call. Life can be so bitter cold at times and can leave us jaded on this speck, this singular lifeboat suspended in space in which we find all our hopes, all our failures, our joys and our pleasures. Your call has impacted my life, Doug, and like that answering wolf I want you to know that you have been heard and you are appreciated by this wolf. Be encouraged and know this community needs you. -- ARose Wolf 19:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about the source being poor, but this native lore about the area should be added to the article because this will make the subject more informative and grounded. I don't know about the main source for this, so if you have information about it, you can add it to the article instead of me. Hebele ( talk) 15:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)That source is sensationalizing a supposed Native American legend. Without a reliable source by an expert in the field that discusses a well documented legend or belief, it does not belong in that article. Donald Albury 17:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Donald Albury@ Hebele I don’t think there is any authentic native lore. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, most "Indian legends" are nonsense created by PR hacks to promote a place or event. An occassional item of oral history can be tied to a real event (i.e., Crater Lake#Sacred significance), but those cases require very good sources. Doug, you may remember the supposed "Indian" legend about how the New River in Fort Lauderdale got its name after an earthquake caused the roof of an underground river to collapse. That story apparently was written down in a WPA writer's project. Those WPA writers either made up the story, or wrote down what the chamber of commerce told them to. Donald Albury 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Grunge.com gives the same information about the lore and indicates Revelator Network, which is a defunct site, as a reference.

https://www.grunge.com/625795/the-biggest-bennington-triangle-disappearance-theories-what-really-happened/

Another links contains information about local lore: https://prezi.com/p/3tl8fwojagql/bennington-forest-its-mysteries/

https://vermonter.com/bennington-triangle/

https://svclookingglass.com/4299/art/writing/the-bennington-triangle-the-ghost-town-of-glastenbury-vermont/

https://www.legendsofamerica.com/bennington-triangle-vermont/

https://www.historicmysteries.com/bennington-triangle-disappearances/

It appears that Joseph A. Citro's various books are the main sources of this information, but I believe all of these sources are reliable.  Hebele ( talk) 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Hebele ask at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cancer is horrible. I pray that you will overcome this horrible disease.

Ocemccool ( talk) 12:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mound Builders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GiovanniSidwell ( talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Limpert, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I have worked some on this and moved it to article space lest it end up deleted. —DIYeditor ( talk) 09:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@ DIYeditor Fantastic. I definitely don't mind and feel a bit guilty for forgetting it. He deserves an article! Doug Weller talk 09:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

His "friend" and former teacher Karl Bosl could use some work too. I'll put it on my list. —DIYeditor ( talk) 09:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@ DIYeditor and thanks again! Doug Weller talk 10:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Doug hope you are doing well. I need to borrow your brain. :-)

I have been watching a discussion on Sovietblobfish's talk page concerning St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. In the article is a paragraph:

• "The French 18th-century historian Louis-Pierre Anquetil, in his Esprit de la Ligue of 1767, was among the first to begin impartial historical investigation, emphasizing the lack of premeditation (before the attempt on Coligny) in the massacre and that Catholic mob violence had a history of uncontrollable escalation.[75] By this period the Massacre was being widely used by Voltaire (in his Henriade) and other Enlightenment writers in polemics against organized religion in general. Lord Acton changed his mind on whether the massacre had been premeditated twice, finally concluding that it was not.[76] The question of whether the massacre had long been premeditated was not entirely settled until the late 19th century by which time a consensus was reached that it was not.[77][78][79]"

The paragraph appears to be well referenced. The $10,000 question is, can the last sentence state, "The question of whether the massacre had long been premeditated was not entirely settled until the late 19th century by which time a consensus was reached that it was not.", when supported by 3 references?

Or is the word "consensus" a big hurdle? As always, I value your opinion. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear it's something I've never been sure about. Obviously we can use quotes that mention consensus. Further than that I can't help you, no time to look at it in detail, too many things to do and not a lot of time (besides editing, about 3 hours of exercise, housework, cooking, etc.). Doug Weller talk 14:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually Doug, that does give me a possible idea. Thank you very much. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I may have overreacted, but I put a dubious tag on top of the Lagash page, because it seemed misleading. I had recently removed a lot of unsourced statements from it that were pretty glib. If you have time, with your superior knowledge of ancient history, could you gauge the credibility of the article? thanks, Rich ( talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have said the Gudea article, not Lagash! Rich ( talk) 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Richard L. Peterson I’m trying to concentrate my time on pseudoarchaeology so don’t have time or really the background to go into detail. But what you did clearly improved it, seems ok now. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I wanted to bring to your attention towards recent edits in the Bill Warner article that seem problematic. It currently says he's not an anti-Islam writer anymore despite the sources saying otherwise. The article also now makes heavy use of primary sources and other dubious sources in the background section and now reads like a resume (rather promotional in tone). Some reliably sourced text about Warner not having an academic background in religious studies seems to have been scrubbed and replaced with promotional language about his own research on the topic, cited to primary sources. There might be other issues but those are the most obvious to me. I wanted to bring this to your attention as it looks like you're one of the editors that watch this page periodically to keep it in good form. I have not been that active on here recently for a myriad of reasons so I'm uncertain when I can go through this. You can also take a glance at the article whenever you have the time. Anyways, have a great day Doug. SlackingViceroy ( talk) 00:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last clean version of the article; much of it was cited to Bill Warner's LinkedIn page, not to mention other problems. We'll see what happens. Carlstak ( talk) 01:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@ SlackingViceroy thanks. I raised it at WP:FTN . I think I was the only one editing it who wanted to present Warner/French for what he is, not what his fans think he is. I see it's been fixed. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Doug Weller. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! interstate five  00:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Doug, back in 2018 you helped clear suspect promotion of Paulo Coelho by his literary agents. I've since discovered another dubious article created by User:Mediasantjordi and have left a suggestion that it be deleted on its Talk page. I'm hopelessly non-tech and am unsure how to carry that further (and can't follow the article on how to create an AfD nomination). Could you help, please. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 19:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) How has that survived all these years? I've removed the attempt to use a wikilink as a citation, marked the link to Coelho's blog as self-published, and tagged the article for notability. I would have prodded it, but I suspect the prod notice would be quickly removed. I probably will send it to AfD tomorrow. Donald Albury 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Sweetpool50 I’m on my iPad in bed. I’ll look tomorrow. Or let Donald do it if he has time. 😀 Doug Weller talk 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magical Moment. Donald Albury 23:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

my story today

I noticed your post on AN, about contentious topic warnings for all participants. Without having looked at the discussion, I assume they are all aware. I'd go further and say that it's exactly those few who make the topic contentious. Compare Mozart and Tchaikovsky: always the same few voices opposing. The community doesn't oppose. I think it was a big mistake that arbcom called for fighting that same war on talk page after talk page, and I strongly believe that we simply should stop thinking that infoboxes are anything special. I was sanctioned by arbcom (until 2015) for having wanted infoboxes for operas. They were new at the time (10 years ago), and yes contentious, but they are now in more than 1.5k articles. I have no intention to waste time in the CB discussion, - I am here to write about music, - see my story ;) - I asked the arbitration candidates if they think that we still have infobox wars, and they said not really. - I wish they were right, and the flower under the snow stands for my hope that the wish may come true. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a lovely flower. I'm not getting more involved in that discussion either, I've not enough time to waste it that way, sadly I keep finding other ways to waste it here instead of editing the things I really should be editing. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, - I made resilience my topic of the year, and the flower its symbol. Enjoy reading about another singer, perhaps, Jenny Lind. Best wishes, and share the flower with your wife please. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there - Just wanted to point you to these edits from this user as well. The inital change and my question on his talk page which was deleted. Skipple ☎ 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Skipple thanks. I’ll ask him why and say I need an answer. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably a misunderstanding, but this should be zapped. He hasn't been accused of that. – ². O. ^Boxing 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See recent edits at Tikal, history. Incaaztecmaya9 and AndrewBuckwalter. Meat puppets, sock puppets or link spam? Or am I just overly suspicous? Thought I'd ask a second opinion, it just seems weird two new accounts tag teaming the same newly created section using the same source. He iro 20:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Heironymous RoweTurning off the lights now, I’ll look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Heironymous RoweWeird. Ask them? Not sure they are new, noticed lack of page numbers though. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you check whether Manjalpur is the same person as Ultimate goal by the government? See, for example, the recent revision history at Vadodara district. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Bbb23 No they aren't, and Ugbtg has been editing logged out though, but stopped 2 weeks ago. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

A user you recently blocked for making disruptive edits to Muktananda now appears to have a sock puppet: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:66B:D8C1:9429:7EFF:FE4A:C50

Thank you. - Ram1751 ( talk) 23:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Ram1751 At the moment they've stopped. If they start again I'll block them. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)