Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

#ADOS or ADOS is a more appropriate name for this article and not American Descendants of Slavery because ADOS is the actual name of the political movement and not American Descendants of Slavery.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the welcome. The term American Descendants of Slavery is an ethnicity (another term for African Americans) and is not a political group. Only some American Descendants of Slavery have claimed to align with the political movement that goes by "ADOS". I am following their group closely and am seeing that there are many descendants of United States chattel slavery who do not align with #ADOS or ADOS meaning the political movement. I also read that ADOS is organizing to get the term American Descendants of Slavery to replace the current term African American. Lastly, the sentence, "It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification" is an odd sentence/opinion because African American is an ethnicity and that means to have descended from chattel slavery within the boundaries of the United States. A person can not just join an ethnicity group. The sentence doesn't make sense nor have I seen them say that. How can one African American tell another African American that they do not share the same lineage? I have seen that they would like specificity apart from other Black ethnic groups. I hope to see the quality, layout, and authenticity of this article improved. Thanks again. (Writefactsonly (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

@Writefactsonly: thanks. If you post to the talk page, please remember article talk pages are there only to help improve the article, not discuss the subject of the article, and changes in content require sources meeting WP:RS. I'm not sure about that sentence myself, but I also can't recall if any of the ADOS supporters or founder on the talk page have complained. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ash Sarkar edit

Hello Doug. I thought the comment saying she was a communist makes it very clear she is far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comelistentothetruth (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Comelistentothetruth: no, not all Communists want a revolution, and she's a special type of Communist. Also, that would be an interpretation in any case, (see WP:NOR), you'd need multiple mainstream sources specifically calling her far left.

Edits with familiar pattern

I've just come across this edit from a 'new' editor with a similarly numerical name to the ones I brought to your attention on 11 July. I checked and there were a whole string of edits from the same source for an outfit called Loyal Books peddling stuff that is readily available elsewhere online. The audio files are better than Ligohi's, apart from a regional accent, but there's no way to link to them directly so you just get a bare URL and than have to search for what the edit promises. I'm wondering how useful all this eager activity is and whether we're dealing with a puppet plague. Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I'm not entirely sure. [1] and [2] like it, but it does have ads. A better rep than Lioghi. They also added a link to Skyhorse Publishing. I didn't have time today to find my old SPI and look at it. Hopefully tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphinx erosion theory

The point is that Hawass states:"No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."

That statement is no longer valid because of Göbekli Tepe. There are certainly plenty of sculptures and totem poles etc, there that have been proven to predate the 5,000 year criteria. It is evidence that obviously someone existed at that time capable of building them. Hawass talks about artifacts, pottery, inscription or anything, and in that sense he is wrong. 95kcp (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@95kcp: did you read that quote in its original context or did you find it somewhere? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was part of some online Nova interview here [1] It sounds like Hawass answers in broad terms "any place" and then narrows it down to Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95kcp (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@95kcp: that's what is being said at Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis which is probably where you should be commenting. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ :https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:DougWeller

The old redirect on that talk page was erroneous so was removed some time back, then a few users posted there, so I've fixed the redirect and moved the two messages above. —PaleoNeonate – 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit deletion

Hi Doug, I'm HalfdanRagnarsson. This is about a Leeroy-Jenkins character called Avis11, who decided one fine morning that he would change the format of all articles on Roman Emperors to his preferred style. Since then, he has repeatedly edit-warred against multiple editors to keep his preferred format, despite a discussion still going on here. I am the most recent editor whose efforts to restore the status quo have been reverted. I am here because this is not a block request (which is why I did not go to WP:AIV), but simply a request to delete his recent series of reversions from emperors Tiberius to Theodosius I, partly because it is his third or fourth instance of edit-warring on these pages, but mainly because he has slandered me in nearly all of those edits summaries as a "persistently disruptive editor". Thanks.

PS: He seems to have a penchant for abusive language; when someone told him off on his talk page, he called that person "full of crap". HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Halfdan either lies through his teeth or is completely clueless. The discussion he refers to was already dead for weeks, with a majority of editors in favor of my proposed changes. He revived said conversation (adding nothing of worth), and, after twice dismissing my replies, proceeded to unilaterally carry through his changes w/o any discussion on his part whatsoever. 'Full of crap', though hardly abusive language, is an accurate description of the other editor in question: an aloof and obnoxious fence-sitter who decided to weigh in and attack me alone without the right idea of what was on. By rights it's Halfdan who should've gotten all the blame. Avis11 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
May I add that, of the many editors who could be said to have 'edit-warred', I was the only one to take the issue to the talk page, and actually go through the trouble of discussing it. Halfdan just decided "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and, like a child, decided to carry out his will regardless of anything else. Avis11 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Another thing, Halfdan explicitly said in the very same conversation he linked above that he would not attempt to mass-revert again, presumably until he got support for his position (not forthcoming). A mere sixteen minutes later, here he is, trying to do just that. I'll also point out that this user has himself a penchant for acting in a disruptive fashion. He has been thoroughly uncooperative, dismissive and deceptive, and acts all polite and indignant once called out. Avis11 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Avis11: Yes, I will not mass-revert again. But something must be done about your offensive edit summaries. (Again, no offense to you personally.) Now, I will not clutter Doug's page any further. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lemuria

The thing is there is no citation for that kumari kandam. I am very surprised that you reversed my edit. EruTheLord (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@EruTheLord: yes, I wouldn't normally do that and if I'd had time I'd find sources from the KK article. Since there is obviously a connection, can you do that? Or do you really think it's better not mentioned? Or if you insist on no IAR, remove it and hope someone fixes it. But sections need content. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I do observe that there is a connection, let it be there I will put a citation needed tag. If it stays without citation for long time then it can be removed from the page. EruTheLord (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Omar and Ocasio-Cortez

Please let me know if the recent reverts are valid. I've added sources that they support this, I cant fathom why it would be reverted unless it is due to politics. Valoem talk contrib 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Who what?

Where?

I presume it was a mistake?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: as you may know by now it was an attempt to thank you! Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
LOL, I do it me self.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Native American name controversy

Does this qualify for revdel, or does it not quite rise to the occasion of egregious racist weirdness? Heiro 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: I don't think so, it's just idiocy. I saw it earlier. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Globe

Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ? thanks a lot @davidguam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidguam (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Amendment on Domestic Terrorism

I dont see that the 7.21 Yuen Long Incidents and 8.31 Prince Edward Incidents are commonly recognized as domestic terrorism, and they dont match the definition of "domestic terrorism" at all.

The hong kong protesters are trying to deliver wrong messages to wikipedia users.

These two incidents should be removed from the examples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theories of Pashtun origin

Notice

The article Theories of Pashtun origin has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casperti (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian vote

Vlad does deserve kudos for that, after all he's done, he's able to pull that off. It's as if wikipedia was actually able to get enough donations without putting those boxes everywhere. It seems impossible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist

Hey Doug Weller, I've just created a Spam-blacklist report on "Phoenicia.com". I noticed that you already reported it in 2008 (Fringe theories). Do you know any other informations about the website? Could you take a look at my report? I hope you're safe and well during this pandemic. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller kindly visit Talk: Bijak to advise on proposed edits. Regards Satya Jaimala (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Protection level

Hi! I noticed that Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine is protected at the templateeditor level—did you mean to do that? Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

no, I've fixed it, thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC) @Mdaniels5757: Doug Weller talk 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziolkowski edits

It seems that User:4.78.42.18, whose edits seem almost exclusively focused on the life and works of Jan. M. Ziolkowski, may be JMZ himself. Can you run a location check on him and see if he's from Harvard or area? He's not the only academic I've noticed up to that game. You'd think anyone intelligent would not make the pattern so cretinously obvious! Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: you can check and IP for geolocation, but I did and not near Harvard. But raise the IP at ANI as editing JMZ's article and spamming him as a source. Don't make any suggestions about who it is. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I took a look at the earliest edits on the prof's page (2014) and guess who I found as a contributor...User:JMZ Research!
@Sweetpool50: I just reverted the IP at a couple of articles and see that User:Drmies has worked on the BLP. Should the IP be warned? Doug Weller talk 09:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on the case, Doug Weller. You best know procedures but...warned of what? I doubt if there's any sanction against unashamed puffery. & given that the IP seems to have quitted the former JMZ Research for a less obvious identity, might not a warning cause him to burrow even further out of sight? Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

JMZ Research (talk · contribs) was responsible for this edit; Angeliki Laiou was one of the directors of the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (see here), which the IP had been spamming for in the Ziolkowski article. Yes, the IP should be warned for their COI and their unacceptable edits (at heart, promotional BLP fluffery without proper sourcing: the Ziolkowski article is still just a resume), and may have to be blocked. Ziolkowski, BTW, seems notable enough, but the article is just awful and I don't have the time to clean it up. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Buddhism in Tuva

I've just come across this while stub-sorting, and note that you deleted a previous article with this title on 6th August as being created by a sockpuppet. You might want to check whether the new version seems connected to the old. PamD 11:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I hate you! :-) - I've got a whole nest of socks to clear up now. Good work! Doug Weller talk 12:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh it's amazing what I come across while stub-sorting! I went to create a talk page, saw the previously-deleted message ... over to you! PamD 13:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@PamD: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das. I'm about to block and do any Admin deletions that need it, if you wanted to do some reverts, feel free! I'd planned to do some other stuff, that will wait a bit. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Hi Doug! I see that you left a notice on my talk page. I understand that I have to follow the policies. Now I don't know what edits could be appropriate for me. Can you please explain? Powering everyone (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bijak

@Doug Weller: 1. For your ready reference I have reproduced versions of three writers. Kindly visit Talk: Bijak and give your expert advise on proposed edits. I know your are fully occupied, but kindly help me in doing right things. 2. I wish to create new article page on "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species). This is very important aspect of "soul realization" and "salvation" from the miserable cycle of birth and death. All Indian scriptures and saints have spoken loudly about it. I shall do this after receiving your green signal. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Society of Classical Poets

Hello there, just wanted to talk about my edits to the Society of Classical Poets page which were undone.

I think the quotations in the second paragraph of the "History" section should be removed because they don't just critique the "Inaugural Poem," but also promote political opinions. (For example, one of the quotations calls Trump a "terrible president."[1]) Additionally, I got the sense that the poem's critique itself was informed by those political biases. (Take the comment on immigration policy,[2] and notice that this article's reason for saying the poem plays into the anti-Lincoln "rhetoric" is that it calls Obama a "tyrant."[3] Also, the Michael Cohen who authored the latter article may be the Michael Cohen (lawyer) who was Trump's former attorney, so his article may be worth checking for bias.) To put it very coarsely, it seems like the reviewers don't like conservative political opinions and therefore don't like the poem. So even though the sources are credible, the reviews are ultimately expressions of debatable political opinion and because of that are without academic authority.

I hope this helps make sense of my edits--I'm happy to talk more. Penpiper (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Doug, if I may: Penpiper, those evaluations are properly ascribed and verified, and the sources seem relevant and reliable enough; they're not pulled from little poetry e-zines. That a reviewer has some bias is irrelevant, as long as their opinion is properly ascribed and reliably sourced, but this Michael Cohen seems to know a bit about poetry--did you read the actual review? Very interesting material on pseudo-medievalism, which of course was a very happening thing before Scott already, and apparently still lives on--anyway, it's this guy, a professor at UCLA.

    The problem with the content is actually a problem with the article. The content about the poem doesn't even mention the poet (a Joseph Charles MacKenzie), and there is very, very little content on the club itself. In fact, the real question is whether the organization is notable in its own right. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Drmies, thank you for correcting me about Michael Cohen. I skimmed the whole article, and read the portions specifically about the poem more carefully. You prompted me to check out what some of Wikipedia's guide articles say about bias--I think I understand its policies a little better now, and am starting to see why my reasons for removing the quotations were questioned. Penpiper (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Giovannone, Aaron. "Who says the alt-right doesn't like poetry?". Literary Review of Canada. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  2. ^ Giovannone, Aaron. "Who says the alt-right doesn't like poetry?". Literary Review of Canada. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  3. ^ Cohen, Michael (2 February 2017). "Make America Highlands Again". Avidly. Retrieved 18 May 2020.

Cleanup

Just saying hello, and that I've added a few timestamps/signatures that'll help the bot archive old threads. —PaleoNeonate – 07:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thanks, much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice, please

I have reverted this [3]. Is any further action necessary? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: probably doesn't need rev/del given his article I'm sure it's been added there at times, but I did NLT block the editor. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cadusii

according to encyclopaedia iranica, cadusii were an iranian people, some other sources say they were non-iranian. non of these theories are proved, so you cant write they were neither iranian or non-iranian in the begining of an article!!! May you are probably judging history tendentiously??!! Arash2018m (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for admin deletions

I noticed that an edit by Fargtrease in my watchlist included the odd phrase Anal cunt felch. I checked their contributions and noticed it in a number of their edit summaries. I opened their talk page to leave a message asking why they were doing that, and deeply regretted at that moment that I had just eaten breakfast. Can you wipe out their talk page without looking? (You don't want to look.) (You were the most recently active admin in my watchlist) Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!! Schazjmd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

श्रीमान २००२ is violating the topic ban made by you. He is talking about Sanskrit, a language not spoken outside India, on multiple pages.[4][5][6] On another page, he moved content from one section to other section and then started the talk page discussion[7] to move remaining content of the section (which is now all about India) to the section about India without naming "India" but using the word "countries" instead.Accesscrawl (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should let these pass. The Sanskrit edits appear to be related to help on a different wiki (the Sanskrit wiki) and the healtcare one is only marginally suspect. They could, of course, be testing the ban but these don't appear to be violations. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Bijak

@Doug Weller: I would be grateful for your advice. If you kindly encourage me I shall write on Talk: Bijak page provided you check and approve after correction. Secondly, I wish to create new articles pages such as "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species) and other related topics on my sand box. I shall do this after receiving a word of your advice. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Kindly need your intervention.

Good day to you Doug. I wish you look into this issue being created by User:Kambliyil on the articles of certain districts of the South Indian state of Kerala. I think you may be aware that like with the European nations and also US and Australia, India is divided into *states* which are further subdivided into *districts*. Kerala State has 14 districts. And there are as many articles for the same. This user keeps adding a map of "North Kerala" in certain districts which happen to be in the northern part of the state.

As is typical of any old culture, there are subtle cultural differences from district to district, town to town, family to family, and caste to caste. There are 14 districts in Kerala State which is the very first primary level of division and then many other further subdivisions at secondary levels. This page [[8]] clearly shows that the first official level of segregation is at the district level. Yes the state is much longer than it is broad and is a very coastal state. Though it had been under a group of three inter-related primary royal families of the Deep-South of India from the earliest point traceable in recorded-history which goes back centuries before Christ until well into the medieval period. The details - cultural and otherwise - of the districts are already present extensively in the article.

Wiki articles for every district in any state in India has had only one map - the one showing location of the same within the state e.g - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirunelveli_district which is for Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu State.

The pages he is acting truant on are : Kannur district Kasaragod district Wayanad district Kozhikode district Malappuram district

This user has been on WIKI for hardly half a year and has already been blocked once. I did read your message at the head of this page. I do think this will merit your attention and that there is substance in what I say. I also apologize for this message being too long. I would be very obliged if you would look into this and stop this vandalism. NYCLover2016 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@NYCLover2016: sorry, real life got in the way. Has this stopped since User:Ohnoitsjamie warned them? Doug Weller talk 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed the problematic image in question, except for on North Malabar, where it might be appropriate (though I'm under the impression that North Malabar is not defined exactly as what's depicted in the image)? The user is a good-faith editor, though it's unfortunately how much they clog up the edit histories with piecemeal edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

mizo kuki chin

Hello read my reply on my talk page its related to this subject i mention .thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller! Just want to inform you that this editor continues to make unsourced changes even after warnings by several editors (including you) on their talk page (and also here). I still assume good faith, but their apparent unwillingness to comply with WP:V needs to be handled now. –Austronesier (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: just looked at your talk page, maybe it's a bit too early. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think I fell into the WP:BITE-trap. I expected a continuous spree, but they clearly want to contribute and communicate; plus they react to our feedback, which is a good sign. –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Symmetry of second derivatives

Hi Doug. In the past I have been helped by you, Moonriddengirl or Diannaa when problems have arisen with WP:COPYVIO. In this case I have recuperated a short text on the Wayback Machine. It was a short article on the History of Mathematics published in 1940 in the journal Scripta Mathematica, vol 7 , pages 59-62.[9] It was written by Thomas Higgins from Columbia and covered this topic from 1740-1940. In July 2020 I had prepared a paraphrase-summary of this content for the "History" section of the article.

Today, from his user talk page, D.Lazard started discussing Gumshoe2 together, with the goal of reverting my edits to the article Symmetry of second derivatives. They could not quite decide how to do that, but started with the History section. Gumshoe2 claimed that my paraphrase-summary in that section was a straight copy-paste, which is not true. On the article talk page I have described the difference between the original and my version in great detail (without disclosing too much of the original). I have given the original in the link above and I have also the paraphrase-summary here [10] before D.Lazard claimed there was a copy-vio. Is it possible for you or another copy-vio expert to check the original and my version? I am not sure how to retrieve the content in a clean way, but it is given in this diff.[11] D.Lazard has now been edit-warring on the article with 3 reverts & edit summaries.[12][13][14] I do not believe that D.Lazard's statements about the copy-vio are correct.

I would be very grateful if you or another copy-vio expert could check these edits and advise me how to proceed. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also be grateful for comment. The discussion between myself and D.Lazard which initiated this is here. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug- Mathsci says he communicated with you by email and has now changed the section to something that looks much more suitable. But would it still be possible for you to make some brief comment on whether the passages I quoted in my above link are problematic? It would be clarifying for me, since as I indicated there, I have some genuine confusion over what wiki considers plagiarism or copyright violation. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I told Mathsci that I think that User:Diannaa or User:Moonriddengirl know a lot more about this than I do. Let's wait to see if one of them comments here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
After I wrote the email to Doug concerning Diannaa and Moonriddengirl, I decided it was easiest just to rewrite the section. As a result here is no need to send any messages to either Diannaa or MRG. Mathsci (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm interested in and of itself, nothing to do with my criticisms of any of your wiki edits. As I've said several times, I don't have a very good understanding of whether wiki considers edits such as the ones in discussion here to be copyright violation or not. I would like to understand for the sake of future editing. Even just a brief sentence from Diannaa (talk · contribs) or Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) on the text comparisons given in the third message here would be helpful to me. Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The matter is stale. Doug is a former arbitrator who is a friend of mine. Because I am the editor involved, MRG and Diannaa will almost certainly take no further action. MRG and Diannaa also both know me. I am a regular. If your aim is to muddy the waters with "legalistic" aspects, I would probably request help from Newyorkbrad so that your attempts can be nipped in the bud. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not looking for any action, just wiki guidance. Not sure what you’re talking about. Feel free to contact newyorkbrad. (I don’t know who that is) Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You will not get specific guidance about my edits. In the past people have worried about images when there are copyright problems. Often that can happen on Commons. General guidance can be found in Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. In the case of WP:COPYVIO there is a standard procedure where a template is added to a section. If there is a violation, a standard procedure gives an automatic way for an administrator to check one wikipedia section with a url. Normally paraphrases are permitted. This happened recently on 17 July 2020 in closed and exact differential forms where a large amount of material was copy-pasted into the article. An admin rev-delled the article (see editing history). The editor concerned was acting in good faith but did not know the rules. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Talpade

Hi! I am responding to your message regarding Talpade page. You mentioned that when edits are reverted, we should engage in talk and not revert back without any reason. I just wanted to inform that I have been engaging in talk with RegentPark. He reverted them citing booksfacts as not a relevant source. But I have not mentioned booksfact as a source. Hence, I have re-edited the page. Kindly check my talk history with him. Thanks.ga11 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Parassharma1 topic ban

You have indefinitely banned Parassharma1 from editing all pages and discussion connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Their edits since then (regarding Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu expression with links to the Indian Bharatiya Janata Party, and about the Indian government at User talk:Tayi Arajakate) appear to be in contravention of that. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dorsetonian: thanks, blocked for a week. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to evade the block. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Kindly advice me what should I do? Regards Satya Jaimala (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Admitted WP:SOCK keeps editing while awaiting CU and block

Hi! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. After a clerk endorsed CU, the user in question admitted to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY (diff). They have kept editing a little bit since (contributions). As they have admitted to using a sockpuppet account (which in this instance is a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVASION), CU is at this point only necessary for a sleeper check. Do you think you could take the time to perform the CU (or perhaps just blocking the account that is an admitted sock without doing the CU if the CU would take too much time right now)? TompaDompa (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: done. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You seem to have accidentally removed the TPA block from Roqui15 in doing so, however (see block log). TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Medes

Are you sure that you read my whole edit? There more than 12 resources (Books) that would lead people to read them.

It is not only Minorsky's word that you talked nonsensely. I want my edit back. Else I will go for a debate. (Redacted) Read your text you sent me. Key Mîrza (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Key Mîrza: Accusing a longstanding admin of en.wikipedia.org with 223,763 Edits of not knowing how to write proper english isn't exectly helping you cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? Then read his/her message sent me: We already have a section on the issue & that mentions Minorsky, however it fails to reflect the main article Origins of the Kurds - the section should be a summary of that - also we would need inline citations and preferably indepondent reliable sources discussing, not just possibly cherry picked quotes lacking context (TW) Key Mîrza (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What the word "indepondent" means? Key Mîrza (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And may i know who are you? His/Her lawyer? Key Mîrza (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Key Mîrza: Go read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL until you get what your problem is. Doug generally contributes using a tablet, which explains accidentally typing an O instead of an E in "independent" (which a competent English speaker should be able to gather was the intended word). Now, on what linguistic grounds are you going to defend "nonsensely"...? As a native English speaker with a degree in English, who has taught at a university level, I can tell you that's not an English word. Pull the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in someone else's. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the Boss. Key Mîrza (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've got no idea how that typo occurred, but you don't get through Yale, LSE and the University of London, or tenure at the University of Birmingham, with inadequate English. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You were mentioned at AN

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that an editor made reference to something you told them in an AN thread earlier today and there seems to be some disagreement over whether your words are being represented accurately. It's a complicated and confusing thread and I understand if you don't want to get involved, but I thought you should be given a chance to set the record straight if you so desire. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: thanks, but your guess that I might not want to get involved is correct. I don't think I understand the issues sufficiently. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, pov psuhing and edit warring

Hey Doug Weller, an ip editor (174.74.161.72) changed referenced content from Siege of Málaga claiming that the words "conquest", "conquered" and "conquerors" are pov pushing. I reverted him but he started edit warring and now wikihounding me by adding "Citation needed" ([15], [16]) to the (the references are in the body) articles that I created. This is not his first time removing referenced content and claiming that it's pov ([17]) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:DRN but there's been no discussion on the talk page. By the way, the MILHIST guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history says don't use words like "decisive" victory. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

POV fork

Hey Doug Weller, a draft (Moors before the Islamic Era) was accepted as an article. I redirected it to Mauri, because it's a POV fork (with a pseudohistorical afrocentrist agenda) full of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, misrepresentations and outdated material. If it's possible, can you delete the talk page/main article? Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheseusHeLl: disappointing that it got accepted, but I can't see justification for my deleting it, sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the wp:drn regarding the reverting of my summary of Chapter 11. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Who We Are and How We Got Here.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Above section

Looks like it is transcluding the template. Too late at night for me to figure out how to clean it up. Anyhow, Truth is King is worse than my userid: Objective... O3000 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
  • A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
  • A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Open Ticket

Hi! Is it possible for you to handle or reply ticket:2020081910005845 please? Thank you Doc Taxon (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doc Taxon: done, but I'm curious as to why you asked me. I'm not active on the ordinary OTRS, just Oversight, but no problem. It's a good idea for me to handle things like this once in a while. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I have come to you because you stated on your user page: "This user is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team." Thanks for all your help. Doc Taxon (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: an excellent reason. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a fairly new contributor (as I have mess than 200 edits), I am confused by being told that some of my edits are not neutral such as when I added that the founder of the Marine Corps was a Penn alumnus. How do I contact someone to review where I have gone wrong? OneMoreByte (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

WP:UNDUE says Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

But which reliable sources should we consider for the criterion above? We know that WP:NEWSORG sources amplify controversy and are prone to Wikipedia:Recentism. If we considered them for the DUE criteria, then the articles Islam and Muslims would be mostly about terrorism.

Thinking out loud, the sources I'd consider for the DUE criteria are the sources that give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole, not those who cover a small portion of the topic. Since WP:GNG requires every article to have such sources they shouldn't be hard to find. Other WP:RS (i.e. those do not give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole) can certainly be used for content but they shouldn't be used to evaluate WP:DUE-ness.

Do you agree with this understanding of WP:UNDUE? I'm happy to hear about your understanding of the policy.VR talk 17:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

More concretely, for the article Islam in Sweden, I would use coverage in the following to determine the how much different aspects should be given weight in the article:
I would not use news articles to determine WP:DUE-ness, even though news articles are perfectly acceptable sources once DUE-ness is established. Let me know if my thinking is on the right track. Thanks! VR talk 02:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I think that's the way to start. Establish "DUE-ness" through those sources. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving (or not) at Book of Joshua:Talk

Doug, perhaps you can help: Talk:Book of Joshua is supposed to be archived every 90 days, but there are three threads there all dated 2005. I have no idea why or how to fix it. Achar Sva (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It's probably the fact that the signatures had non-standard date formats that prevented the bot from detecting the date. I manually archived them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot is also configured for |minthreadsleft=3 meaning it left 3 threads left, although that is independent and may very well also be because of the timestamps, since more recent threads were archived. This means that if those had been fixed or archived manually, the last three recent threads would likely have replaced those old ones on the current talk page (I expect that to happen with future threads). Thanks for noticing and fixing, —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Further Help with Category: WikiTable for page, "Dictionary of natural phenols and polyphenols molecular formulas"

Hi Doug, I've tried to put this page in its proper category (WikiTable), and changed its orphaned status by linking it to the article "Polyphenols". I see my earlier reference was corrected and pray ask you once more clean up my flawed attempt to categorize this article. Thanks yet again! Respectfully, Steve C User: periodyssey --Steve Culp (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

About your comment to me about "You can't add or fix pings"

Doug, I appreciate the heads-up.

Although I have edited articles for quite a while, I continue to struggle with the details of how many things work. I hate to admit it, but only last May, I stumbled upon the fact that the markup language was called WikiText and that there was documentation for it. I did know there were lots and lots of Wikipedia documentation (I had used the MoS) but how and where to find any specific item is mysterious and annoying to me. That may sound disingenuous, but it is true. Wikipedia has been an almost impenetrable monolith to me. Is there a place that will allow a search of just Wikipedia documentation and not the entirety of Wikipedia to find a "piece" of documentation?

Specifically, about "pinging", could you point out where I can find some documentation for how to "ping" correctly?

I sit here and I am not sure that by just creating this new section on your talk page whether it will notify you or not. Or should I "ping" you? Or should I have replied to you on my Talk page where you left your post? I am puzzled by things like this often. Puzzles, so many puzzles.

I literally struggle every day trying to figure out how to find documentation about how to do something. And, when I find a page relative sort of relevant to what I need to know, it is like "drinking from a fire hydrant". Do you have any guidance about who I can approach my Wikipedia's documentation dilemma?

About me. I am not exactly a computer Luddite, although I am not exactly sure that electric works--it's all magic to me even though I have a degree in engineering and have worked as an engineer in a previous life. Begining in 1973, I have worked as a computer systems analyst, systems engineer, developer, a system designer, and I have been a software development manager. I still have the punch card deck for the last Fortran program I wrote in 1979. But as the technology has become increasingly more "cloud" like, it has become more cloudly for me since my method of learning is largely intuitive and observational.

Thanks again.

Osomite hablemos 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Osomite, (talk page watcher) here. I so sympathize with you. It's daunting. Quick answer: when you post on someone's Talk page, they are always notified, so a ping isn't needed. (The ping and your signature must be in the same comment to work, so when I sign this comment, you should get a ping from me.) One page that might help you find stuff is Editor's index to Wikipedia. It's huge, but reasonably well-organized. The problem I've encountered is not knowing exactly what to look for, that's a real challenge. Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, thanks for the info about pinging. The documentation is "Template:Reply to,", of course; if I were to write the documentation, that is exactly what I would have called it probably, maybe.
A "(talk page watcher)", Ha Ha! (or maybe more like a chuckle). I like to watch too.
I am doing a notification to myself just to see if it will send me a notification: Osomite
20:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Osomite hablemos
@Osomite: believe it or not, I share your pain. After almost 225,000 edits there are still many things I don't know or understand. I still struggle with how our category system works for instance. @Schazjmd: thanks for telling me about the index - again, something I should know but missed! Doug Weller talk 07:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've tried it, but if I understand it's possible to fix a ping if also replacing the signature. At least last when I read the code, the ping module required a signature to work, also explaining why ping wouldn't work when attempted in an existing post (but if I'm correct, also updating the signature with four tildes should work). I'm sorry if this is obvious to you, but WP:HELPDESK and WP:TEAHOUSE are also open to questions whenever you like. About cards and FORTRAN, I'm of the younger micro and C generation, but my father and various people I know worked with cards, COBOL, FORTRAN... Interestingly, those languages still have some use today but I've never needed to properly learn and use them, personally. Some people who do fly around the world for decently paid gigs, as FORTRAN is still used in high performance computing and COBOL code still exists at some banks. This reminds me that some run modern simulations of old IBM mainframes... —PaleoNeonate – 08:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Doug Weller talk 10:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Did it work finally? —PaleoNeonate – 10:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure. I got a notice the first one failed, nothing from my 2nd edit. Let's try this. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate: Doug Weller talk 11:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I may be wrong. I'll try. —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: if you didn't get my 11:03 UTC ping, you're wrong. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not possible to fix a ping by editing a comment. Consider it from the point of view of the software—it has no knowledge that you added a new set of four tildes because it sees the expanded signature. The ping software looks at the diff of the edit and if it looks like you edited a comment, it does not send any notifications. That is to avoid having the recipient pinged multiple times when people edit their text. You could emulate a fix by editing your comment and including a link to the user name in the edit summary (for example, an edit summary containing [[User:Example]] would ping that user). Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I only got this last one, so indeed. —PaleoNeonate – 11:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Mini 4WD

For starters this is a breach of WP:OWN, not to mention that what he's doing is patently un-civil and uncooperative in terms of how he responds to criticism. I'm citing how much of a mess the American Girl article was prior to the page being streamlined and made more concise, with a comment in the source page telling parents and/or fans of the franchise to add any extraneous content about the characters, settings and stuff on a wiki dedicated to the dolls. Given the excessive detail on the Mini 4WD article I don't think it would hurt to just provide a broad overview of the subject rather than to go into deep detail which isn't what enwiki is asking.

Which reminds me... The page for Our Lady of Porta Vaga is starting to get bloated as well, yet I don't want to end up pissing off devotees especially my brother who happened to be a confraternity member as they might view the deletion of information as irreverent or something. Just like the Mini 4WD page it would be ideal to provide a broad overview whilst keeping to what the major contributor intended. I mean sure the sources are lifted off Creative Commons material, but still... Blake Gripling (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a feeling that a wiki page is going escalate into edit war

Hello, my name is Yuuyatails, and I'm new here.

It had came to my attention that a user named Mini4WD has been showing some bad ownership behaviour over the article Mini 4WD. Said user keeps reverting the edits by other users and acts like he owns the article. Also, this article had some issues but that user doesn't let anyone edit it. I'm afraid that if this keeps going, it's going to escalate into a edit war.

Please do something about it.

Yuuyatails (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to say something: most of the images uploaded (On Wikimedia Common) by this user were taken from all around the internet, from eBay to auction sites.
One example would be this image, which was taken from this listing on eBay.
As you can see, this is a violation to Wikimedia Common's licensing policies. Other users had tried to mark some of this user's image upload for deletion, but got attacked (on both the talk page and on the deletion nomination pages of the marked uploads) as this Mini4WD guy mark other users as trolls and go as far as making unbelievable excuses (Such as saying other users are repeated offenders and sockpuppets, for example).
Yuuyatails (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Where do we discuss the subjects of an article?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Where do we discuss the subjects of an article?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. Letting you know about this as a courtesy since you appear to be have already tried to engage this person on the article's talk page. Perhaps you can further clarify things for them at the Teahouse? They might just not be aware of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RGW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DSLOG for Zionist Freedom Alliance

Hi. Did you mean to log Zionist Freedom Alliance in the DSLOG/2020, rather than 2019? EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: no, thanks for catching that. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

2601:89:8302:9F00:9DB7:298:724D:A0C4

Could you please block user:2601:89:8302:9F00:9DB7:298:724D:A0C4 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Banned from Editing

Hello I received your message about me being unable to edit papers on the Arab-Israel conflict. I must say I am a little confused by this, I did not edit anything about said conflict instead I reported and added in what I thought was important information on a member of Congress that would fit with what I have seen from other pages. While it does indirectly deal with the conflict the news I posted about had to do with a member of Congress associating with people and organizations considered to be anti-Semitic. I have no bone in the fight between Israel and the Arab states, my interests was solely to provide more information on a member of congress and to explain why some have called her anti-Semitic. I cited from respected works and could find nothing factually wrong with what I posted. I believe that this ban is unneeded and should be removed. Thank-you.

@Doug Weller: I do wait to your response about editing Bijak page and creating new article pages. Thanks in advance and regards.Satya Jaimala (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

31 hour ban on New Chronology Fomenko-Talk

Hello @Doug Weller:,

I will not dispute the ban you have placed on me on the previously stated page. But I would like to tell you that I've placed a lot of effort and research on any of my contributions, which I've re-read to ensure that they are understandable and objective, with the aim of improving its corresponding article page. I've also refrained myself to make major edits on the article page, so to evade polemic discussions. I've reverted to just suggestions on this talk page, which I will like to continue until I'm convinced that there's no point in doing so (I'm not invulnerable to bans, disregard, avoidance of scientific discussion, etc.)

I'm also surprised by your remark about me being "warned a number of times about personal attacks" within the ban, I think you are referring to that *one time*, that I, as a newcomer, failed to refrain to write what can be understood as an attack. After that I publicly promised to not do it again, something that seemly I've failed to accomplish according the ban.

Today, I just can't be sure from where exactly this ban comes from. It seems that my interlocutor can use harsh descriptions and boast how he ignores me and my suggestions, but my constrained last response is judged as a personal attack from you, and this counts also a "yet a new warn" of my purported 'recurring' attitude.

You have the responsibility and authority to perform this action, and I will not judge you for it. But I don't want that my silence after it could be interpreted like that I feel is rightly deserved, thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. I, myself, feel somehow insulted by this treatment, so I don't promise that I would contribute more suggestions after the ban or long after. Thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. As science will walk their way to the article more sooner or later, with or without my contributions, I have to reflect on the pros and cons of me devoting time on it. Cjbaiget (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 06:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Steve Sailer isn't a "white nationalist"

I've been reading Steve's blog for nearly 3 years now, and not once has he ever said anything that borders on white nationalism. He even had a debate with Jared Taylor, an actual white nationalist, in 2005, where he clearly argued that white nationalism is a bad political strategy. Please allow my edit to stand. Jmccubbi (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

New editors usually don't understand that we don't allow personal research. See WP:NOR. We simply go by what sources that meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV say. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Large section deleted at Sold South

Hello, I noticed that user ‎Jageracog2020 has removed a large section of material from Solid South, and that you had noted similar actions on their talk page. I would revert it myself but I also see from the talk page that it might result in an edit war. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: but the exit summary used says "remove false statement" a claim he's used before.[18] I doubt there would be an edit war. Or that the editor will last much longer. I'm not reverting as I'm staying uninvolved (I can't act as an Admin if I get involved). Doug Weller talk 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. Another editor reverted his edit, he reverted that, and I put the material back and suggested he put his evidence on the talk page, but I don't think he will. Best, Dubyavee (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dubyavee: not unless he appeals and gets unblocked. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Haggadah article

Hi, I would require your help in the Haggadah article, where the lede mentions a "Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt". There were no Jews in pharaonic Egypt. Hebrews and Israelites were not Jews, neither in the Tanach nor in real history. Jews only came into existence in the 6th century BCE when Judeans were resettled by Persians, and became monotheists. Also, the entire Exodus story is not historical but religious fiction, alternative history as it were. WP should make a clear distinction between myth/legend and history in the lede. However, I fear editing the article will stir a whole wave of fundamentalism from religious editors. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi Doug. Since you're familiar with the history of North Africa and the problems that often arise from the transcription of Arabic names into English, I was wondering whether you have ever come across a situation like this one? Basically, we have two historical figures (al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kutami and al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kalbi) with a similar name that is often abbreviated to "al-Hasan ibn Ammar" or simply "ibn Ammar". The fact that they lived more or less during the same period and were affiliated to the Fatimids has led some scholars, albeit a minority from what I can tell, to confuse the two, even though only one of them held the Wasita title.

Creating an article for each is not a problem, the real issue is how do we deal with the wikilinks of the abbreviated names (al-Hasan ibn Ammar and ibn Ammar)? I thought about a disambiguation page, but that could potentially confuse the reader, plus it wouldn't address the wp:weight problem. Any thoughts you have will be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: sorry I didn't reply yesterday. I'm not that familiar with the issue and certainly not the weight issue, but couldn't you put (Wasita}} after the name of the one with the title? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I know you're busy. The trouble with the "Wasita" is that although the majority of the sources attribute the title to one of them (the Berber), some attribute it to the other (the Arab), making it impossible for us to attach it to a single person (this is where the weight issue comes into play). I was hoping to avoid the need to disambiguate or to add a footnote each time the shortened name is mentioned, but that's starting to look more and more unlikely. I'll keep looking around and if no new ideas are forthcoming from other editors, we'll probably settle for the lesser of the two evils. Thank you very much for your suggestion and for your time. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug, sorry I didn't reply your earlier message. There is no conflict of interest with folio.ng --- I would have just created a page for the site if there are. I am a Nigerian who is trying to get the content of Nigerian platforms to places where readers can see them. I actually plan to move on to including links from other sites like okayafrica.com and native.com. Apparently, I didn't think this through. The pages I have included the links are pages whose references are not in-depth. I will stop and consult Wikipedia guidelines again. Thanks for highlighting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgunnaKanayo (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I know it seems insignificant but thank you for reverting the change in Cherokee spiritual beliefs. I was so tempted to do it and may have had someone else not done it. You are my hero. I monitor over 169 pages related to the Cherokee people and I am working like mad to bring as much of it together as possible. I appreciate you very much.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit in article on JCD Clark

Hi Doug, I have just noticed that on 27 Feb 2020 you reverted an edit I made in the article on J.C.D. Clark. I had listed it as a minor edit, and you took me to task for not explaining my edit sufficiently. My edit removed an unnecessarily clumsy duplication of a point in successive sentences. Here is the current text, as reverted:

"Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7] Clark criticised Hill, Hobsbawm and Thompson for advancing what he derided as an incorrect interpretation."

If you agree that this should be tidied up I will make the edit again, but with a proper explanation this time.

Kind regards,

Trident5000 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trident5000: ouch, that was careless of me. How would you propose changing it - besides of course removing the redundant text. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Talk:

just this: Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7]Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Trident5000 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't have an opinion on Armanqur?

Why are you just targeting me? Key Mîrza used wrong words, I am not defending her,You questioned me saying "fascist" to the discussion page,Why don't you ever question Armanqur, You have not once accepted the currently blocked user "Armanqur" as "Faulty". You mentioned on the discussion page that I called him a fascist, so why didn't you draw any attention to his word "pseudo-history"? Here[19], : ":@Dirokakurdi: IT's not a surprise that you guys think that Hamma Mirwaisi is a reliable source. Seriously, good luck to all of you on perpetuating your pseudo-history. Armanqur (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)" I am waiting answer. Resource sharing (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Resource sharing: you're awaiting my answer? While ignoring my question at User talk:Resource sharing#Since you say Admins accepted your edit, I expect you to name them on the article talk page? You've provided no names (which suggests your statement might not be true) nor answered the other question " Who are "Wikipedia Managers". Here's another question - where did I say anything about Hamma Mirwaisi? As for pseudohistory, if you think using that word is the same as calling someone a fascist, you don't belong here. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
At the same time I posted this, the editor was blocked indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller

Who do you think you are? My father? Stop acting me like a child. I do NOT talk history issues with Persians and Turks. Rather you or Wikipedia like it, or not. What's your problem? Are you okay? Key Mîrza (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Key Mîrza: I'm great. You're about the be blocked. You should be commenting at WP:ANI, not here. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Sorry to be a stalker but get'em, Doug!! From a historical context there are a lot of groups, my own ancestors included, that have been discriminated against. I know there are some deep-seeded issues between certain cultures, even today. However, saying you won't even discuss it with those who may have a difference of opinion is ridiculous. You should see some of my dealings on AfD's. We openly share our thoughts. Sometimes it gets heated but you will always see me listen and I try to respond thoughtfully. Keep up the good work, Doug. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: thanks, you too. No need to ping someone when you post to their talk page, by the way. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I had no clue. Ha! Everyone just always pings.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider undoing my edit on the page "whiteness studies"

As it stands now the page is inaccurate and misleading. This in turn delegitimizes Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. Amy Schucks (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

<tps> Use the article talkpages to make your case, with sources, and to establish a consensus. That's what the talkpages are for. I see no edits there from you. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I report a single-purpose account to WP:ANI?

All of this user's edits are just on Talk:Tajiks from 15 to 26 June. He/She was inactive for 3 months. Then just appeared on 4 October again. How we should deal with him/her? Zero contributions to other articles/namespaces. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I don't think so - they do seem to be discussing the article. Or have I missed something? They've had no warnings either. Unusual, yes. Blockable? I don't see it yet. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It's unusual without a doubt and looks very trollish in my opinion. It's better to read his opened section again; both his comments and other users' replies. Why is a so-called tourist obsessed with an ethnic group? What kind of tourist comes to WP and spams a talk page with racial and genetic stuff?! What kind of normal user edits only one specific talk page?! I sense nationalistic agenda/quest in this case. Also There is a chance that he may be just another sock account of Tirgil34 or WorldCreaterFighter. Me and other involved users don't feed that guy anymore. And he has become active just because of a comment by a problematic user.[20] --Wario-Man (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: go ahead and go to ANI, post the link on the article talk page as well as notifying him. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: If I may be so bold as a lurking stalker of Doug's talk page because he is such a fascinating subject to follow, I see your point about the editor in question being disruptive. I so wanted to interject into the conversation that we don't claim that modern American's originated from Mongolia because 30,000 years ago a group crossed the Bering Strait land bridge. We don't even claim that within the American Indian community. American's have a wide diversity of ethnic origins yet the origins of America are largely attributed to European (British, Spanish, French) and American Indian beginnings because those were the predominant forces present when the history was written. Other races came later and some are included because of their in-depth contribution to the country, historically, but not all.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: The point is genetics and DNA do not determine identity and culture of an ethnic group or a specific groups. That user tries to add Mongolian or whatever to the essential parts of the article just because Tajiks have East Eurasian admixture. Modern Tajiks and their ancient/medieval ancestors have nothing to do with Mongols. It's like forcing someone to identify as Black just because he/she has some Sub-Saharan Africans admixture. Or many other similar cases. I will report that user if he tries to disrupt the article itself. Hey @Doug Weller: Last question and the end of discussion: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is just an essay and I don't know what policy/rule is the best for reporting a case like this. Your advice? Thanks! --Wario-Man (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

West Eurasians

Hi, I am returning to Wikipedia after a couple of months of distancing from it. I have noticed that the entirety of the article I had written on West Eurasians was deleted by user Rsk6400 after what appears to be an inherent tirade against the information exposed there. While I personally perceive this enaction as vandalism and POV editing. He made some arguments that I would like to inquire about, as they don't seem entirely unjust to me.

1.Most of editing, or in other words his main argument, is that genetic studies of ANY KIND do not represent valid sources to be used in Wikipedia at all, given that they are "primary sources" rather than "secondary sources". Now, I understand why in some fields this distinction is very important, but population genetics in general is a natural science field with a high degree of replicability and there are many, many Wikipedia articles written exclusively, or almost entirely, using papers on genetic studies which are published on journals and peer reviewed (secondary sources, yes?). These papers have mentions and are part of a non-contradicting scholarly canon. Wikipedia's guidelines themselves specify that primary sources might be proper sources under some cases and perfectly usable, and doesn't outright describe primary sources as non-valid, but rather that they should exist in assistance of secondary sources, which the article did have. What would be the best way to approach this directive to de-legitimize these sources or what can be done around it?

2.He deleted enormous chunks of the article based of "no long form of source given", even for what were direct textual quotes. I understand that a non-long quote provided isn't a valid reason to delete it, but he did nonetheless over actually helping the article by adding the sensible quote himself. This to me appears to be entirely destructive in nature and born out of bad will over a true intent to elevate the standard of Wikipedia.

3. As soon as this user found the article, he added extremely arbitrary maintenance tags, particularly describing the concept of West Eurasian as "fringe", and "not based on enough reliable sources". What's the users authority to enforce these tags, specially without any kind of supported consensus? Isn't over 30 different studies on the field enough to validate an article? Ive seen featured articles with a lesser number of quotations (not that it makes them bad articles). What's up with such arbitrary manipulation of the guidelines? He also called the terminology of West Eurasian itself fringe, despite dozens of studies textually describing it or its alternative "Western Eurasian".

5. One of the more bothersome ones is his obtuse enforcement of "academic consistency". For example when quoting different studies which are talking about the same exact remains (for example, MA1), he deletes the quotations due to them applying different nomenclature despite being about the same exact subject and with the same exact conclusions (i.e being called ancient north eurasian in one and "siberian hunter gatherer" in another). Is this a valid practice? And, how would one be able to circumvent it?

4. The chart I utilized at first that was produced by Lazaridis was referred as non-primary and I agree. I provided a similar chart from another actually published study but he deleted it by referring to it as "similar to the previously used one", how is this valid at all? The image was ultimately deleted as it was directly taken from the study, but were I to replicate it and reference to it what would stop him from applied this logic again?

This user's motivations appear to me to be based around his dislike towards racism 19th century academic racism which he adamantly professes on his Wikipedia page. While I understand the motivations and everyone is free to produce contributions (in this case, destructive and possibly vandalic ones) based around personal interests and biases, whats the point at which POV starts being enforced at a meta-literary level. Because what it appears to me is that in an attempt to sanitize Wikipedia from such (possibly) dangerous concepts, he goes to the extent of deleting anything that even partially resembles it over a very specific worldview and system of beliefs this new information conflicts with.

I obviously would like my article reinstated, but I feel it would be best to know how to address these concerns in order to have a robust position. In case we would be able to reach a conclusion, this user seems to be engrossed nontheless with the aforementioned fields and constantly edits them to their liking. While I don't mind him contributing to his field of "expertise", is there any way to inhibit people like this from "contributing" to axiomatically different fields which are based around more robust bodies of data?. Ever since he deleted the article he has been editing several other ones on archaeogenetics applying the same exact methodologies. He is ruining them with his enforcement biases. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bathtub Barracuda: I remember carefully looking into each statement before deleting it and giving an explanatory edit summary for each of my many edits, explaining major concerns on the talk page. WP guidelines don't allow presenting fringe theories as mainstream science, and that's the motivation behind many of my edits. Doug, if you have any specific concerns, I'll be glad to answer. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate you not lying or at least addressing the points made directly, I checked unicode character by unicode character in order to give yo the benefit of the doubt, deleting entire pharagraphs due to typos, deleting intermediate statements made with the purpose of connecting two different sources into a single paragraph, enforcing completely arbitrary standards such as "to justify the inclusion of these and the exclusion of others we'd need a secondary source". Who gave you the authority to make such outlandish claim and delete 40% of the entire article on a whim? You didn't use the talk section at all to even attempt to mediate these changes instead just took an entire two days of campaigning to do whatever you wanted with the article, its all there on the edit logs and the talk section where you explicitly describe the article as a "scientific racism" agenda, and lastly on "I wasn't able to find the term West Eurasian". Its not my fault you cannot properly utilize the quotation system or are lacking in investigative methods, Western Eurasian or West Eurasian has been consistently utilized since at least 2013, several articles such as this one.[1] Either address the points directly, or dont bother replying to me at all, thanks.
And to anyone even willing to mediate this, is it enough reasonable evidence of POV to introduce oneself into an article being tirelessly abrassive, then proceeding to nuke the entirety of it?. It should be duly noted. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Loudon

Do you think Trevor Loudon is notable? Google shows only two pages of hits, the sources are either affiliated or namechecks, and his books are self-published. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: yes, I'm afraid there are enough reliable sources actually discussing him, eg[21] which isn't used. But I'd remove the Glen Beck stuff as 2 cites to Beck aren't discussion in reliable sources of his participation, which is what we need. And the personal life section. Also probably material sourced to the National Observer about what he claimed. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Look how often he's used as a source[22] which includes at least one book of his in Bibliography of Barack Obama The Jeff Rense book is also self-published by his co-author.[23][24] Doug Weller talk 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, also several from Regnery. As with the news, the right have erected a parallel ecosystem where hatred and opinion masquerade as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG I saw those but didn't mention them as I'm not sure we can remove them. I think the others can go. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent revert (Institute for Historical Review)

Perhaps I missed it, but I checked all the linked sources and I couldn't find the source for this specific claim: "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations." Would you mind pointing it out for me? PCRONtalk 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@PruneCron: I'll have to look again tomorrow, I certainly some some mentions. They held a meeting with the National Alliance[25] and that was mentioned in one. Also[26][27][28] Another source on a slightly separate issue that could be used for the article is this. If you want to discuss further, please use the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Basmala

I assume you dont know how to read the arabic calligraphy otherwise you would have kept the same word as it is Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Saifullah.vguj: Observations from a talk page stalker: I am assuming good faith despite your past issues with vandalism of articles. You should listen to the other editors and get a consensus on the articles talk page before making the changes you want to make as it has been requested.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: Well while being a stalker do you think you should edit? I dont think so Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Saifullah.vguj: Talk page stalkers are helpful editors who watch other people's talk pages and help out. The advice is good. Use the talk page, show that you understand the article and the discussions above,, and show sources backing your argument. And learn to ping. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I fixed it for him. Something tells me I won't get a thank you out of it but that's the perilous and edgy life of a talk page stalker. Meh, I thought it was good sound advice. I could have just said I didn't like the combative tone he was taking but I chose to be more casual this time, yuck, formalities and all that.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well the main source is arabic calligraphy itself which has two ل i.e.laam (pronounced L) so how english spelling turned into single L. Its like writing dog instead of doug. Hope it helps Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User 021120x

I've noticed your comment on the ANI raised by this individual, and you also appear on his Talkpage; I don't think he knows what 'ad hominem' means :)

Just advice really; I'm confident the ANI has no merit and he's simply unused to not being able to bully people. He's now provided an 'explanation' which (after I'd managed to decipher it) is a pretty simple lie - should I just leave it? I don't want to make life more complicated for the administrator handling this, so is it best to just let it take its course? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: I think just leave it. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

This account[29] appears to be the sock of this account[30], which you blocked a few weeks ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Checkuser blocked. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Allah as Islamic Deity

@ user:Doug Weller How and when can we add NPOV tag in it? Can you please help me with it? Saifullah.vguj (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page.

Appreciate the info Doug! Please let me know if you have any questions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbot64 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can I make edit requests in the talk pages of the articles to restore images? I assume that's what edit requests are for. Thanks.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Watchlonly: absolutely, you can discuss the conflict on talk pages - remember though that you can only discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article, as our talk pages aren't general forums. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation Request

@Doug Weller: bro , can you create article of Karikku.Karikku is an digital media company in Kochi,Kerala. Established by Nikhil Prasad in 2016.Karikku is started as sketch videos in YouTube and Facebook. lot of News references is available now.Please check it out. Chennai Passangai (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

RevDel and block IP 198.41.55.190 ?

Hi,

I reverted two disruptive edits to Whiteness studies that contained anti-semitic slurs. The same IP also inserted anti-semitic slurs in Noel Ignatiev's BLP, which were reverted by another editor. If you think it's appropriate, please RevDel this vandalism and block the IP. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Troublesome Edits

Hi Doug, you recently placed a DS template on PailSimon's page so I wanted to bring his more recent edits to your attention. I don't want to bring him any more attention but I don't think he is here to collaborate but to instigate or worse. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

hi

can i ask why you or somebody else has deleted history of pages?. I find that a nuisance. You can not check now old versions of pages . There are some wiki backups in the net but it is more painful. Thanks--37.13.41.230 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pleased don't search for backups on the web. Except for copyright violations, anything that has been deleted either through Wikipedia:Revision deletion or Wikipedia:Oversight is material that clearly should not be available to other editors and in some cases Administrators. When I have to oversight or revision deleted, I start with the original problem and use my tools up to the latest version. That's because we have to get it out of history, but intervening material isn't deleted. Read the Revision deletion page for the details. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

021120x and French Revolution

Please do not advise this editor to request WP:DRN on the French Revolution. They are already saying at WP:ANI that they want to discuss at WP:DRN, but only with those editors who will behave properly (and apparently they want to decide what is proper behavior). This is a case where a difficult editor may misrepresent good-faith advice. Please don't tell them to try DRN. If they want to publish an RFC, that is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Too late. But I don't expect them to understand how to behave anywhere. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Mesha Stele- Authenticity not doubted by any scholars today

Hi Doug. You reverted my edit made on Oct.15 on the Mesha Stele page in the Authenticity section. You said it is "far too strong a statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice." I respect your opinion, however I would like to ask your opinion about 2 things. Firstly, I wrote on the Mesha Stele page: "...provided absolutely conclusive evidence of the Mesha Stele's authenticity" and so taking into account your concern I would like to edit it again , changing it to: " provided evidence for the Mesha Stele's authenticity." Do think this is okay for me to add?

The Khirbat Ataruz Inscribed Altar and its subsequent translation and interpretation by noted scholar Christopher Rollston and A. Bean et al. in the published 2018 Levant article I cited, showed, through its Moabite language text's narrative and linguistic connection to the Mesha Stele , that the famous stele is genuine.

Secondly, do you think that the first paragraph of the Authenticity section should be deleted since it says that several scholars in the early 20th Century doubted that the Mesha Stele was genuine? All scholars and archaeologists today believe the stele is genuine. The view that the Mesha Stele is a forgery has been debunked and in my humble opinion should not be on Wikipedia's Mesha Stele page. It is ultra, ultra fringe and harms Wikipedia's credibility. Would it be okay that I (or if you can do it, I will appreciate it ) delete the first paragraph in the Authenticity section? Take your time to respond Doug.--BuckRogers25 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@BuckRogers25: thanks for your message. I think I've fixed the authenticity issue, let me know what you think, but probably on the talk page. Ping me - eg I wrote {{re|BuckRogers25}}. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch should help you with writing style. I wouldn't use "also" by the way. And as I said in my edit summary, it needs a bit more. When using a journal article a lot of us feel that it's the conclusion or discussion section at the end which should be drawn upon normally rather than the detail. One issue that needs to be considered is that papers such as Rollston et al are [{WP:PRIMARY]] papers and we prefer secondary. When do we use a new discovery? Some editors put it in immediately, others would prefer to wait until it is discussed in secondary sources. See WP:UNDUE. I wish there had been more discussion, it seems as though it only has one citation, in this. But never mind, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and advice, Doug.--BuckRogers25 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Instruction on Appropriate Procedure

Hi, Doug Weller. What is the appropriate process for closing an ANI thread? It does not seem that any of the participating parties in the article content discussion are willing to adjust behavior, and it seems futile to continue investing energy into the article content discussion. 021120x (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this editor was blocked today for a week due to battleground behavior, POV-pushing, and personal attacks. Doug Weller talk

Fine People Hoax

Hi, regarding the Unite the Right edit, the identity of the "some people" in the USA Today article is explained in more detail further down the article (have to scroll past all the ads!). --Pakbelang (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

disruptive editor

Edion Petriti is getting to be a major nuisance (see Gospel of Matthew and its talk page. Can anything be done? Achar Sva (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Londinium

I don't think you can have intended your edit at [31]. Can you take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

DJ Foxx Tha Roc

There were some issues with the article below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Foxx_Tha_Roc

I have since made some changes with additional information and would like to request for the article to be reviewed for publishing. Thanks. Francinelumbala (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

CIR issue

Hi Doug. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with this editor who doesn't seem to understand how consensus works. Having seen that both I and Kansas Bear disagree with their cherry picking, and instead of taking a step back to wonder about how they managed to alienate the very editor they invited to the discussion, they are now resorting to calling me "too stubborn", edit warring,[32][33] harassing me[34][35] and probably even socking to force their POV. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'm sorry, it's not nice to ask for help and be ignored for two days, many apologies. I see that this has come to some sort of halt. I'm glad they deleted at least one attack on you. If it starts up again, how about an WP:RFC? Doug Weller talk 12:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I really appreciate you taking the time to look into it. The personal attacks aside, what makes any discussion with them nigh on impossible is their complete lack of interest in what anyone else has to say, while expecting the others to pay close attention to their monologue (as clearly demonstrated in their interaction with myself and Kansas Bear). That's why I've given up trying to reason with them and I'm simply waiting for the pinged editors to share their thoughts before inviting Kansas Bear to rejoin the discussion to see whether we could improve the way the information is presented. If we can't, then a multiple choice RfC could be considered. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

POV PUSHING and Bans

It's very interesting for me to see that anyone making neutral edits on Wiki gets blamed of POVPushing. The last edit I made was reverted and called POVPushing for simply mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan and Ethnic poets. The one before that was reverted when all modern day nation states such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were mentioned in the wiki page of 'Journey to the West', but when I simply put Pakistan there it was removed as POVPushing? All my edits are undone by Indians who have Systemic Biases against Pakistan and don't even allow Pakistanis to edit pages on their own history because the moment one does it automatically becomes POVPushing for them. The current Wiki Page on 'Pakistani Nationalism' was edited by an Indian who removed all the original content and shifted it with Anti Pakistan narratives and how Pakistani nationalism is redundant. But when we try to edit it back, we are said to be POVPushing. Don't believe me? go check the wikipage yourself. All countries and their history is mentioned by their contemporary names, yet when it comes to Pakistan and we put the name of our country over regions which existed in this country, it is magically POVPushing? It is honestly shameful for me to see that Wiki is now a site which is solely run by people who are biased towards a certain community and have the backing of actual supposed neutral moderators. I hope you can reconsider and actually look into the edits of mine that are claimed to be POVPushing and see if literally mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan is somehow POVPushing and if it still makes you feel as if it is POVPushing, then you can go ahead and permanently block my account because I'd find it shameful to be a part of a community that is supposed to impart knowledge to millions of people but casually overlooks systemic bias in their own community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtar10 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Adams bridge page

Respected sir It has been suggested to me by the editors of my page to merge the page with the Adam's bridge page. You deleted the changes while I was in the process of doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhumi2tandon: Really? Not according to the article's history which shows no edits at all by Doug Weller? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Doug, did you write on Theroadislong's talk page to ask him to read my edit comments, which he claimed I did not include? I doubt it. TheKingLives (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IP: 86.11.51.106

Hello Doug, Could I please bring to your attention the recent activities of 86.11.51.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I realise that you have already had dealings here. They inserted a notice on the Imber page regarding sources, in spite of the fact that the sources/references include the BBC and reliable authors on the subject. I have reverted the notice. As you know, it is not possible to engage with them on their Talk page, as they have stated "Please do not write here" and "Do not write here, I don't care and it will be blanked". Another admin, Oshwah, has previously warned them in 2019, and blocked them for a short period. I wonder if it is time for another block? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Best, David J Johnson (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also

I'll be more than happy to assume however I want, and don't write on my talk page again. Thanks TheKingLives (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheKingLives: I might not - of course if you do anything that warrants further warnings or sanctions, your wishes don't matter. Your attitude is particularly disappointing as I have fond memories of the Yale Dramat. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. Literally could not care less about what you think TheKingLives (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A coversation

Doug, you get into so much trouble, my friend. I ran across this conversation doing research today and had to chuckle just a little. Talamachusee loved putting forward their beliefs as facts. They weren't always wrong looking at contributions but couldn't be reasoned with, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I know a lot about known Cherokee history but I don't know everything and I always leave room to improve my understanding. Anyway, there you go. That is our episode of "A walk down memory lane with Doug". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

New editor promoting SARS-CoV-2 origins conspiracy theory

Hi Doug Weller, could you take a look at Shturmavik71's edits? They've linked to a website (independentsciencenews.org) that's promoting conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 at Mòjiāng virus (diff). They have raised the same link and additionally argued for the use of a Medium blog at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology (diff), where they are arguing for giving conspiracy theories about a lab origin for the virus greater prominence. I've been trying to explain to them that they can't use random websites, Medium blogs, and non-peer-reviewed Master's theses to make claims about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but I'm not getting through (see Talk:Mòjiāng_virus and User_talk:Shturmavik71). I've also warned Shturmavik71 about General Sanctions related to CoVID-19: [36]. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I do welcome an independent review Thucydides411, as in my opinion, your editorial choices are misguided. Alongside the 'independentsciencenews' article (which is by experts in the field, a PhD virologist and a PhD geneticist) I've backed my (very limited) edits with 2 references to ScienceMag, and a recent peer-reviewed paper. You are trying to suppress valid and well-sourced information emerging about this important optic you don't like, under vague allegations of promoting conspiracy theories (by your standard of conspiracy).Shturmavik71 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Further, I think that the Mojiang 2012 outbreak is an important event that needs its own page, but I haven't gotten to writing it. I've edited Mòjiāng virus which in the previous form implied a causational connection between the sick miners and the MojV virus. a connection even the original authors deny [37].Thank you.Shturmavik71 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Review needed for ANI/3RR thread

Hi Doug. Hope all is well in these interesting times. I'm here to ask for your advice in how to get a review of the diffs on a thread in ANI/3RR. It was originally closed by an admin without inspecting the diffs, and I strongly feel that the endless reverting in the WP:ARBMAC topic area cannot continue with impunity. An earlier report by myself was closed as stale because nobody looked at it, and I would like to avoid that neglect again in this troubled topic area. I am not trying to canvas you, but I would like to know the correct method for getting someone to inspect the diffs? I was looking through the WP:- pages on 3RR and I couldn't find it and... I'm stressed and busy myself, you know. Thanks a lot for your time. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I was surprised to see that the editor hasn't had a DS alert. I've done that and of course without that they can't be sanctioned via ARBMAC. Are you asking for the diffs to be checked for 3RR or? It's really late to block for something that happened 2 days ago. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was asking what the right way to ask for someone to inspect them was (I wanted the thread to get attention but did not want to be idk canvassing and was asking what the right way to go about it was), when I came here awhile ago. The diffs show a pretty flagrant 4rr violation, but that was obscured by the wall of text that turned into, and I guess mods being unavailable. I am sure Alexi has gotten the DS template before, he's a long timer, but I guess it has to be recent? I tried to keep it sane but I guess really failed. Thanks for giving it a look.--Calthinus (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Calthinus: unless someone has been involved in an AE discussion or sanctioned in the last 12 months, they need the alert renewed every year. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Open case archived

Hi Doug,

Beshogur’s case at AE, which is ongoing, has been archived. Can you please have it restored?Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: done. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Case again Archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, what is the procedure next?.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mr.User200: if no one wants to add to it and the problems have stopped, that's it. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

Hello,

I will be leaving Wikipedia after your comments on my talk page. I will write a much more in-depth letter directly to Wikimedia so it can be documented for the record. It is obvious that you do not want me here and are unhappy that I created the "Stop the Steal" page regarding a current conspiracy theory. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was a non-partisan institution but it appears if something is unfavorable to right wing, then it is not acceptable. We live in a free country so I will respect that this is how Wikipedia is set up and I will no longer contribute.

Pacificgov (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pacificgov: as someone who helps enforce WP:No Nazis I'm confused about this. I've responded on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I echo what the previous respondent said. It is a shame that a non-profit organization that requests donations is beginning to be bias towards the Right-wing. Can't wait to tell all of my friends to stop using wikipedia.Fairwiki2020 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) FairWiki2020

@FairWiki2020: the first editor thought wrongly that I was right-wing, and now you are saying here Wikipedia is for the right wing and elsewhere that it is against it. Please choose one. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @Fairwiki2020:. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User engaging in OR/won't discuss. Filed report, no admin reponses

Hello. I recently filed a report at ANI about a user who engages in OR/Syth, edit warring, adds low quality sources (including repeatedly adding a non-peer-reviewed preprint), and refuses to engage/discuss (reverting me and completely ignoring my edit summaries trying to explain the problems with their edits). However, the report has been there for a while now, and although two non-admin users have commented (corroborating what I described), no admins have yet and nothing has been done. The user who is the subject of the report has begun to edit again and thus I worry the problem will continue (since they have a tendency to be unresponsive to explanations and to make strange and unfounded accusations). I'm not sure what to do (I remember it took a long time to get a response from ANI when I reported User:Dalhoa and hope this is not similar). Here is a link to my report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Toltol15_making_WP:OR_edits_and_edits_using_low_quality_sources,_ignoring_edit_notes/edit_wars,_and_refusing_to_engage/discuss

Is there another admin I should perhaps also contact? Any help is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions message

Hi Doug, I saw that you've left a discretionary sanctions message for me on my talk page, could you tell me what this means please? I've had a read of your message but not sure what it entials.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Newgrange

You are right abouit the modern area name, but see the start of the article, and the translation at the other article. Was this originally just the name for Newgrange alone? Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A bit too much?

Hi Doug, I just thought I'd bring this to your attention, as I noticed you've come into contact with this user in the past. Much of this sidebar spamming seems unhelpful, and it's not always relevant to the article in question, or only weakly related. I'm not familiar with sidebars so wasn't sure whether to leave them a message about this and/or start reverting some of the additions. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: nor am I. WP:SIDEBAR covers them, you might ask at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. They're one of those things I know too little about to get involved with. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
No probs, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User Yoonadue

Hello Doug, seems this user keeps reverting content 12 by other users, using weird edit summaries to justify. He was blocked before for doing that.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that 2020 China–India skirmishes should have anything in the territorial field - we aren't meant to be a news site. As for the other, the geographical bits are in the lead, the bit about earliest hominin should remain but the source is far too old. I'm not sure they've done the things they were blocked for earlier recently. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC) @Mr.User200: pinging. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Difficult approach to Cherokee discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Talk:Cherokee history, where much of this discussion is repeated, as well as on my User Page. User: Tsistunagiska, who joined in August 2020, asked me on my User page why I made an edit in Cherokee history saying that the Cherokee did not build mounds, then referred to her statements above to "prove" that they did, citing James Mooney's late 19th c. work and Cherokee web sources for most of these mounds, and the Citizen Times On Biltmore Mound (this article attributed the mound to the Connestee.) But mostly she is saying that the Cherokee occupied these sites and hold them sacred, which I did not disagree with. I tried to suggest that some of Mooney's work had been superseded, and that it might be useful to differentiate between who built the mounds and which cultures later used them. I thought I remembered that there were several places where more than one people used them. Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(cont'd) It had been a while since I worked on these mounds, so reviewed her cited Citizen Times on Biltmore [but apparently got diverted to a different article without realizing it, as later I could not find the quotes!], then went back to other WP articles for review of individual mounds to learn more about them, several of which are NHL or on the NRHP. I suggested we move the thread from my User Page (mistake- Indigenous peoples project) to Cherokee history, as it seemed more specific to this, and since she was covering all the mounds there. She moved it back to my page. [This was my error; it was on the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples Talk page} = {She did not respond to my attempt to clarify the issues, and claimed I read the Citizen Times article wrong, even when I quoted directly from it in a response to her. [This was another error of mine, somehow - could not find the content I quoted, so perhaps had gotten diverted to a different article, for which I apologized.] Her rhetoric has heated up and become very accusatory, in more heated and longer terms each time. In my review of the mounds, which was not completed, some are definitely attributed to the Mississippian culture, which I think worth noting, while also noting Cherokee use and control, and claim of ancestral ties. She reverted all my changes (even when related only to word choice) and repeatedly made accusations of bias and intention that are inaccurate. I really do not know how to proceed. Most articles can be strengthened, and should integrate new information (such as on the Connestee). But reaching consensus on several articles will be difficult to conduct on several article pages at once. Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is silly. The question was first raised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Parkwells arbitrarily moved it to an article talk page, Talk:Cherokee history, when it was about multiple articles and trying to build a consensus for those articles in one discussion. Doug can see when the discussion began. Doug can also see when I went to Parkwells user talk page which was today. I moved nothing from Parkwells user talk page nor did I move anything back to Parkwells user talk page. I reverted non-sourced edits that were made after discussions began but consensus not met. Doug will be able to see all of that as well and I welcome Doug's review of anything. I would go back months ago to Parkwells original edits to these articles (non-sourced mind you) in which they first put forward these unsubstantiated and non-sourced comments which definitely display a POV that does not include all sides of the discussion. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, I am done, Doug. I have been lied about here by this editor. They have tried to discredit everything I have said. Misquoted sources I provided and still refuses to gain any consensus about anything BEFORE they add it to an article. Then, if I don't say thank you to them for adding citations to information about Muscogee history that they, themselves, put in the article on Cherokee history then I get called out by them for it. This is a travesty and is disruptive editing at best. I'm going back on break. Maybe one day someone will come along and clean up the mess they are making. This is why I have had so much trouble getting anyone from both the Cherokee Nation and the EBCI to help me with anything to do with Wikipedia. They take one look at this project and what people are doing here and refuse to trust that it will be kept protected to some degree. I tell you what, why don't we just change the name of the article from "Cherokee history" to "Cherokee history from the perspective of the Muscogee Creek and the Anglo-American historians as told by Parkwells." I am sure if they put forward that name change they'll get some votes for it. Wikipedia is soooooo much better off now and I am sure anyone wanting to learn about Cherokee history enjoys reading how they stole, misappropriated and forced it from the Mississippian Culture and the Muscogee Creeks, as presented by Parkwells, because nothing about the Cherokee could be original, right? Yep, just took their mounds from them and said "this is mine and I'm going to build my town house on top to prove it". Common sense is dead. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I still hope to find time to look at this. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I really don't think they understand the concept of getting a consensus. Even if I add information to an article talk page the same rules apply. I am not asking them to go change the wording of the article but presenting something to try and gain a consensus. Changing the wording simply because I say something is just as bad as changing it because they believe something to be the case. I may be right. They may be right. But the point is getting a consensus. I simply want discussion BEFORE changes are made. That's where this all went wrong and it presented the appearance of a POV that, if not shared by this editor, was extremely one-sided. That is why I said, I initially thought these were good faith edits gone wrong. That's also why I wanted them involved. I am the one that tagged them. I wanted them to share in an open discussion about where they got their sources and allow all of us to review it. The only changes I made to these articles were reverting edits made after this discussion began and without any discussion about the merit of those edits. There still has been little to no discussion on edits. The talk page devolved into us accusing each other rather than working together but that is expressly because there seemed to be no intention of discussion BEFORE edits were made. Do I want the articles as close to the reality as possible? Yes. But the way we get there is not with each of us making arbitrary changes without community discussion first. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I am just very disheartened. I had very high hopes that bringing it to WP:IPNA would open it up to a larger contingent for more discussion and deeper research that would present things that we all could learn from. It would provide a stronger community consensus. These articles have been so radically changed over the past week without gaining any consensus that it will never happen now. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. I've decided to retire from the Cherokee history article. There are problems with content, sources, and organization, I agree. But my participation before this was small, and many other people worked on it over the years. It is too difficult to try to rethink it and fix everything at once, with so many reversions and immediate criticism. The discussions did introduce me to the Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project ("REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH", by BENJAMIN A. STEERE, Southeastern Archeology, 2015, which is a useful overview of work in western North Carolina on this topic. It should be of interest to others working on Cherokee history and culture. Still ahead is the challenge of integrating this material with the major Cherokee people article, or the other way around. Many articles can use rethinking. Thanks for working with me in the past.Parkwells (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this has been resolved, to some degree, on its own as we have communicated more. We both place an importance on these articles to share the truth from all perspectives. My chief concern was communication prior to major changes that alter the understanding and foundation of how the Cherokee were and are portrayed in the articles. I believe that the expertise of science should be included but should not be treated as MORE important that tribal knowledge. Likewise tribal knowledge should not automatically be accepted as MORE important than what science says. In all cases the sources will most likely and should most likely agree, or leave room for the possibility, that tribal history, as understood by the people, could be correct. I believe Parkwells has read and studied further and has a better understanding of where science and tribal agree and where there are differences. Thank you for allowing this to play out and not jumping in too early. It showed wisdom and patience on your part. Very commendable. I look forward to being able to collaborate with Parkwells if and when they are ready to do so in the future. There is a lot of information contained in the references, in regards to mounds and Cherokee towns as well as others like those of the Muscogee and other Mississippian cultures. Plenty to collaborate on where we can find common ground. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: thanks. And thank you User:Parkwells - I prefer not to get involved where things seem to be moving even if a bit roughly. I did reach out to someone I know who might have been able to give more expert advice, but they didn't respond, which is worrying. It's a shame IPNA wasn't more helpful - I was watching it and again I think that some people who were around aren't anymore. I wish I'd had more time to do any useful research, Western North Carolina is one of my favorite places in the world - I have many happy memories of it, although I always found the town of Cherokee a bit sad. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually had the chance to start in Cherokee, NC and follow the northern route my ancestors took during the Removal. I walked a lot of it. I wanted to, in some small way, experience some of the things they would have, at least the physical part of it. Of course I was under no threat of being killed or dying from the weather, wasn't being force marched and could stop anytime I wanted but it was still very humbling. We went from Carolina to Tennessee, up through Kentucky and Missouri, Arkansas and then Oklahoma. I will never forget it as long as I live. We ended up in Tahlequah and the Heritage Center there. The most humbling experience was near Mantle Rock where we actually walked the path with a group. Almost all of them were Cherokee or descendants of Cherokee. It was a large group and no one but the guide talked during the walk. The only sounds were sniffles and there was a lot of wiping of the eyes. There was a feeling of overwhelming sadness that took your breath away. I cried a few times along the entire route but that was the only time I really felt overwhelmed with grief. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
IPNA needs active leadership to remain viable as a project. It is very much a shame it is in the shape it is. I think the parent project IPA (Indigenous People of the Americas) is a little more active but its focus is more on South America and, to a lesser extent, Central America. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

General Question

Hello Doug Weller,

I'm editing Wikipedia in legal manners, as I'm notified in your last notification. Besides, I want to quote that all the content that I post is unique and genuine, then kindly specify to me what kind of issue is arsing. As the text I have requested to publish is completely unique and does not violet anyone's copyrights. And please clarify to me that whether I can edit text next time from thenewsengine.com as I'm officially their team member.

Could you kindly sign your posts when making comments here, please and thank you? Doug may remember the situation to which you refer but is also inundated with other issues. It may make it easier and response may be faster. It's part of the guidelines but is really just about being respectful. Thanks again. :-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN and WP:ANI

Hi Doug Weller, regarding your recent indefinite extended-confirmed protection of these noticeboards, AE is a bit of a vague log reason for such a high visibility page coupled with the indefinite duration. Can you point to a discussion to further support the necessity of this? — xaosflux Talk 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Disregard, I see you reversed that - it was appearing odd in my watchlist. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. What I will do however at some point is add the ARBPIA alert that allows you to specify content that non-ECP editors and IPs can't edit (and add that to the personalised bit I add to my ARBPIA alerts. That should have been done at the time and can avoid some problems. I'll probably do that at DRN, NPOV, RSN. Hm, FTN also I think. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 edit of "Christian mythology" by TonyMike17

Dear Doug,

I am responding regarding a baseless decision to revert the edit that I made below...

The alert that I received contained the following two comments:

  1. At 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC), I received a message stating, "Hello, I'm Nyook. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Christian mythology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Nyook".
  3. At, 18:05, 11 July 2020, you responded, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk."

To begin, I would first direct attention the quote by user Nyook. The premise for Nyook's decision to remove and archive my edit is that "[I] didn't provide a reliable source." My first objection is that I did include a "reliable source;" I cited the reference that I used for "Satanism," which was a direct link to Satanism. Historically, the source of Satan (Satan) and Christ (Jesus) is the Bible. These are facts, indisputable, according to the full extant pages currently denoted on Wikipedia (as sourced hyperlinks, aforementioned). For example, under the definition section of Satanism, third paragraph, is the following paragraph that reads,

"In 1994, the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne suggested defining Satanism with the simultaneous presence of "1) the worship of the character identified with the name of Satan or Lucifer in the Bible, 2) by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy, 3) through ritual or liturgical practices." The definition applies regardless the way in which "each group perceives Satan, as personal or impersonal, real or symbolical.[9]"

Unless I'm completely missing something, this is a reliable source, by definition. Are you and Nyook suggesting this citation is unreliable? Or do you think it's possible a couple of individuals failed miserably to actually read the content that was sourced and cited as reference? Or maybe there was simply bias and prejudice involved in the general decision to revert my edit?

Additionally, see the section "Etymology" in the Wikipedia entry for "Satanism" for additional source citations. Moreover, the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom" continues at length ad banality, as pertains to instance a "Devil Worship.". Thus, it appears, as noted above, that Satan and Christianity are wedded ad infinitum. Here it must be noted that even in the entry Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism is also referenced, even if a demarcation is attempted to be drawn to distinguish between various denominations of "Satanism. As noted on Satanism page, under the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom," where it states, "The Knights Templar were accused of worshipping an idol known as Baphomet, with Lucifer having appeared at their meetings in the form of a cat.[33]", The Satanic Temple also uses the symbol of Baphomet. According to Massimo Introvigne, whether "The Satanic Temple", "LaVeyan Satanism", "Church of Satan", or other fringe cultists or occultists, these institutions meet the definition: "by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy." Furthermore, as example, the following seven "Fundamental Tenets" of the The Satanic Temple constitute "ritual" and "liturgical practices":

  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

Here it is noted that the about us section of the website (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us) denotes the conflict between "The Satanic Temple" and "Church of Satan" as follows...

"The Church of Satan expresses vehement opposition to the campaigns and activities of The Satanic Temple, asserting themselves as the only “true” arbiters of Satanism, while The Satanic Temple dismisses the Church of Satan as irrelevant and inactive."

Under the section "Antagonism towards Satanism" on the Satanism page, the following is quoted at length...

"Another contributing factor to the idea of Satanism is the concept that there is an agent of misfortune and evil who operates on a cosmic scale,[22] something usually associated with a strong form of ethical dualism that divides the world clearly into forces of good and forces of evil.[23] The earliest such entity known is Angra Mainyu, a figure that appears in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[24] This concept was also embraced by Judaism and early Christianity, and although it was soon marginalized within Jewish thought, it gained increasing importance within early Christian understandings of the cosmos.[25] While the early Christian idea of the Devil was not well developed, it gradually adapted and expanded through the creation of folklore, art, theological treatises, and morality tales, thus providing the character with a range of extra-Biblical associations.[26]

Based on this, it's utterly not poppycock to suggest that existential crisis of handfuls of individuals, whether organized or disorganized, are currently under way to ensure the ideology of "the Devil" is "well developed."

If Wikipedia citation can be self-referential, where one page (e.g. Christian mythology) references another page (e.g. Christianity), then it necessarily follows that mutual correlations, even if underdeveloped (e.g. Satanism, must also be referenced and cited, good sir! Otherwise, you risk general rot of intellectual integrity. However these Satanic denominations differ from their Christian counterparts is for neither you nor I to determine! And THAT is truly a page that is not written: please try a Google search (or any) as pertains to "differences between Christianity and Satanism Wikipedia."

I look forward to receiving our response.

Best regards, Tony O'Connor


https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism#section_4

@Tonymike17: this sort of discussion belongs on the article's talk page so that others can take part. User:Nyook hasn't been around for a month so may not respond. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:,

It appears you're deflecting and not addressing my argument, justification, and response. You're the individual who also said, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing." Your response is underdeveloped and unacceptable. Please address my comments. See my Twitter blast: https://twitter.com/TonyOConnor_/status/1328627702912397312?s=20.

I plan to edit the reference again and this entire section can be added, there, as you suggest. If I can anticipate discourse similar to your redress, what literally is the issue? Are you the sole arbiter of intellectual discourse on Wikipedia? Did you even read what I wrote?

Regards,

Tony


@Doug Weller:,

P.S. Where is the articles talk page?

{{re|Tonymike17} it's at Talk:Christian mythology. I am not going to discuss an article issue here - such discussions should be transparent and on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert of edit on the Informed Consent Action Network page on 16 November 2020.

I'm contacting you regarding the revert of my edit on the Informed Consent Action Network page on 16 November 2020.

I have reviewed your guidance at the following URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller/reversion

I'd like to better understand the reason for the revert. Here is the edit summary.

Not encyclopedic - maybe if it ever gets substantial coverage, but not until then

What does encyclopedic mean in this context? I have done some research into Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, but have not found a definition of encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia. (The dictionary definition doesn't appear to be applicable.)

Also, what does "substantial coverage" mean? Is is possible to quantify what the term substantial means in this context?

CarlJParker (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

--

To be clear: My edit occurred on 16 November 2020 and the revert occurred on 17 November 2020.

CarlJParker (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

{@CarlJParker: a reasonable question. Perhaps this will help. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. Also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you want to discuss specifics please use the article talk page so that others can participate. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Stable version

Hi Doug, actually there's no such thing as a "stable version"; [38]. I think the concept can stifle article development. Arcturus (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Using the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Doug. Can you take a look at [39]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

​I've taken care of it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmose-Nefertari

Hello Doug, would you like to express a third (actually fourth) opinion on Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari and the edit war that is taking shape on the article page? The new editor stunned me for good with their eloquence, but now they are starting an edit war with another editor who is asking to achieve a consensus before proceeding, to no avail. Khruner (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Leslyn Lewis

I noticed your mention of mechanisms to protect from impersonation. Do you think they should apply re Leslyn Ann Lewis who has contributed to the Leslyn Lewis page? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, yes, done. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder- Room 52

Hi, I believe you have reverted one of my edits on the Cyrus Cylinder page. I work at the British Museum and I can confirm that the cylinder is in gallery 52 not 55 as described underneath the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.83.103 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug and 31.124.83.103, I looked at the British Museum website after the change from 55 to 52 was made by the IP, and it seems that the artifact is now located in gallery 52. (Unless I'm interpreting the museum website incorrectly). Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although we cannot verify your employment, we can check published sources. This says it's currently not on display, though the Google cache does say that it was in gallery 52. This indicates that the cylinder should be there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson et al, it was the second link (to their Iran collection) that I saw Gallery 52. Perhaps they are redesigning some of their rooms. Thanks for checking. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Religions and Kalasha Religion

Hello, Mr. Weller. You deleted an edit I made on the Iranian Religions page. I removed the Kalasha religion from that page. I did leave a message explaining why I removed the Kalasha religion from the Iranian religions page. The Kalasha people are an Indo-Aryan group, not an Iranian group. Although the two groups are very similar, the Kalasha religion is more closely aligned with ancient Vedic religion. Thus, the Kalasha religion is more accurately described as a form of Hinduism, not Iranian religion. Let me know if you have any questions.

ताज (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ताज, Sorry, I've self-reverted. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ash Sarkar

Hey, I was wondering why you removed the category "English communists" from Ash Sarkar's page? She has stated numerous times that she is in fact a communist including once to Piers Morgan on national television with an outburst that included the line "I'm literally a communist". Mobslayerno1 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Her views and the definition given in the category don't match. Read her views, not the sound byte. Her article says "After a clip of her telling Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain that she was "literally a communist!" went viral, Sarkar clarified her views as libertarian communist, a "long termist" who supports the former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity policies." The wiki link is a bad redirect, by the way. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Libertarian communism is still communism. Mobslayerno1 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Belevalo

Greetings Doug. You added an American-Politics DS notice to this user's talk page in June. Would you mind taking a look at this as well as their recent edits here? Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, seems quiet now since my comment on their talk page. Am I right? Doug Weller talk 11:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, pretty quiet (apart from a separate content dispute that is being worked out on the talk page). Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You are the boss User:Doug Weller. Love you.

You are the boss User:Doug Weller. Love you. jp×g 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this was supposed to be a funny reference to a post. jp×g 16:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
JPxG, I was wondering, but I still don't get it! Dozy me? Doug Weller talk 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw Special:Diff/888789417 and for some reason this really tickled me. jp×g 14:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahmose-Nefertari

Just FYI, there's an ancient Egyptian race controversy-related spat developing at Ahmose-Nefertari. A. Parrot (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I've given them a warning about personal attacks.I don't know that I want to get involved in the argument at this point though. --Doug Weller talk 11:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was given a warning about personal attacks which seems very unwarranted. I encourage you to read the talk and witness behaviors from other editors at Ahmose-Nefertari. Some editors have made it a concerted effort to consistently attempt to discourage and silence other editors by directing the conversation, unsolicited, towards the topic of 'race' and 'ethnicity' and framing discussion, as above, as a dispute (which has failed previously when an independent assessment determined the editors in question were in fact, indeed being dishonest). Once again please read the talk and do not abuse your powers. I hold no such strong views on 'race' and 'ethnicity', and I believe you are warning the wrong individual.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, I haven't used my Admin tools in any way, so there's no abuse of power. But what I need now is a link to the discussion where editors were being dishonest. If you can provide that, you'll need to retract the claim or I will probably block you. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. The person responsible for moderating the dispute was named Seemplez. The dispute is located here [40] and titled 'Ahmose-Nefertari'. The independent assessment's exact words as part of closing the dispute were "After sleeping on it, I believe that this would be better suited to an RfC or third opinion rather than keeping it at DR/N. We may also have Wdford manipulating sources to their benefit, which would be an admin matter." In light of the link, I will leave it at your discretion to instruct me to retract my claim or not, as I would prefer not to be blocked. I did not bring the independent assessment to admin attention, as I felt the issue could be resolved through discussion, instead of resorting to independent assessment or admin to silence or block other editors (as others have, see above). Once again, I believe you are warning the wrong individual. Thank you so much for your consideration.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, you wrote "Wdford, Khruner, and A. Parrot have made my editing experience on Wikipedia very unpleasant WP:HARASS. " User:Seemplez's close actually said "Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, Wdford, and Khruner: Closing as after sleeping on it I've decided it would be better as an RfC, and that Wdford may have influenced a cited source to his advantage, which is an admin matter." No mention of Parrot, certainly nothing at all backing your statement that "an independent assessment determined the editors in question were in fact, indeed being dishonest)". Seemplez, is Nzakimuena's statement correct? And what did you mean by your statement concerning Wdford and it being an Admin matter? Doug Weller talk 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I apologise for the late reply, real life stuff came up, but someone called "redacted" suggested changes to an article cited in the offending paragraph (page 6). It seems like a big coincidence that someone who shares an initial and surname with an editor involved in a dispute basically surrounding this source would suggest a change to this source, but that's just my stance. Seemplez 09:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Seemplez, I still don't understand the bit about changing a cited source. And there's still the issue about the statement "dispute (which has failed previously when an independent assessment determined the editors in question were in fact, indeed being dishonest)." above. That doesn't seem to be your finding. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I haven't heard of Parrot or Tsistunagiska, as they were not involved in the dispute when it came to DRN. Nothing is backing Nzakimuena's statement that editors are being dishonest. Regarding the changing of a cited source, it comes from drawing lines between redacted and Wdford, who could possibly be redacted. In any case it would be a big coincidence if someone with a similar name to an involved editor just happened to suggest a change to a source while a dispute just happened to be going on with this source quite closely linked to it. I can't copy from the source at the moment because Google Drive is blocked behind a firewall. Seemplez 11:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez: I'd rather not be dragged into the dispute itself. I am not the least bit interested in Egyptology or that part of the world, ancient or current. I have enough to deal with in my own part of the world. I simply responded to what I felt was a passive aggressive comment made toward Doug, on his talk page, that I reasoned was inappropriate. Thanks :-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: Fair enough, I'm not interested in Egyptology either. Seemplez 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, yes Khruner initially reverted all of my edits on the page and apologized after as he had not assessed them fully. Khruner also filed the dispute, and in the filling described my edits as supporting the "ethnically black hypothesis". I have made no claim in support of any social construct, or of a pseudoscientific hypothesis. Wdford, Khruner have both directed the conversation unsolicited towards 'race', and 'ethnicity'. Neither Khruner or A. Parrot acknowledged the result of independent assessment when solicited and labelled sourced edits as 'fringe', while also threatening to remove them. WP:HARASS describes activity with purpose "to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing". As the talk on the page (and also the page in its current state and its history) will show (I encourage you to have look), intimidating, threatening and accusatory language was used from the beginning of the discussion. I sought to reproduce what User:Seemplez's close said verbatim, as I hope the following screenshot will confirm [41]. Thank you.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I would also like to bring your attention to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, where Wdford requested assistance from other editors, labeling my edits as 'fringe' and as pushing the 'Black Egyptian hypothesis' [42]. From what I have read this also appeared to me to fit the descriptions in WP:HARASS. Thank you for weighing in. I intend to abide by your (hopefully) unbiased recommendations (given what appears to be your previous involvement on User talk:Wdford, [43]). Kind regards. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: There may be a lot that Doug and I do not agree on, per se, but I have never known him to be biased in decisions from an admin role. His previous involvement, unless directly connected, has nothing to do with the current issue. Assuming different is assuming bias, whether for or against your point of view. To add, the last statement you made seemed to appear that he can only be unbiased if he rules in your favor which is highly inappropriate. My comments are my own and independent of Doug or others here not having been involved in any of this discussion. I simply responded to the singular comment made and not the entirety of what was said. I am a regular talk page stalker of Doug and an admirer of the work he does to remain above the fray as an admin yet offers his opinions and points of view as an editor. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: Hello, thank you for your feedback. I have no preconceived ideas about Doug Weller. And I confirm that the last statement is not intended to make it "seem to appear that he can only be unbiased if he rules in my favor". I agree that to make the statement with such intention would be inappropriate. I preferred to communicate and highlight my awareness of a relationship which to onlookers and myself, could be viewed as relevant. Indeed, the statement has caught your attention, and you seem to confirm my hope that Doug Weller is unbiased (regardless of his final judgements, and despite any potential long standing previous engagements with an other editor involved). Once again, thank you very much for your feedback, and for confirming. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: With all due respect, my reply on whether your comment was appropriate or not had nothing to do with your intent, at all, but in the appearance of what you said. You stating your intent is of little consequence to the fact the comment should never have been made in the context in which it was. Anyone casually observing could come to the same conclusion as I did that you may have made the comment in order to influence Doug's response (hopefully) in your favor or set-up a rebuttal of a response not in your favor. At any rate, it could be conceived as an attempt to cast doubt upon Doug's ability to remain a neutral admin to which you have not provided any proof to support. The statement being made is what was inappropriate, irregardless of intent. I need not confirm anything concerning Doug or his actions as an admin. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska: I thank you for your assessment of my intentions (which I communicated), and the appropriateness of my statements. I also respect your opinion. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding this here because adding it within the conversation seems a bit confusing: I was forced to go read the entirety of that dispute to check for "manipulation of sources" and came up with several points from my perusing.
  • How is contacting a source for clarity and then having that source clarify their statements publicly a manipulation? I've only ever wished to contact sources on articles I was involved in to clarify further their comments, however, James Mooney and my ancestors are not present to question so we are left with what we have.
  • I am of the opinion that all major additions to existing articles that can manipulate, there's that word again, or alter the course of what is discussed within the article, even if sourced, should be discussed first. However, if it is added to an article discussion and editors bring it up in the talk page those additions should be removed until consensus is met, either way. I'm actually ok with it being added initially. It would be completely different if the subject of the additions had nothing to do with the subject of the article itself. To give an example, if the subject of article was on the Japanese culture, why would I add information to the article on prehistoric societies from the mainland Asia except where it actually intersects with Japanese history? (I don't need to know when the Mongols invaded Persia in an article on Japan.)
  • Understanding that, absent concrete proof, all analysis, including those we think are expert, is purely guesswork or assumptions when it comes to the ancients and what they believed. I am American Indian. My ancestors passed down oral stories but until Sequoya came along we didn't have the written language. Every written account of my prehistoric/historic ancestral heritage is either from European/American study and assessment or was written in the late 1800's into the 1900's from oral accounts. It is also composed of "expert" analysis by archaeologist and historians who are human just like me and form opinions based on what their eyes tell them but that doesn't make it 100% factual. My point is that nearly everything we believe about near-ancient or ancient cultures is speculative. (I still honor my ancestors and follow some of our old ways the best I know how)
At any rate, I believe that discussion and disagreements are fundamental to what we are doing here. In regards to a Conflict of Interest (COI), we are all guilty of that. Every human being has a built in COI the moment we form our first opinion. We have prejudices and interests. We compartmentalize and segregate every moment of our lives into categories and label them. We place a level of importance on every aspect of our daily discussions. Some of us even plan out our events. The hope is that we can see that we are all connected and share the common link of humanity. Unless we find a way to leave the Earth in our lifetimes we will die here and return to the dust that we came from. If we spent equal time, equal passion and equal diligence seeking the ways we are the same as we do in ways we are different we may actually achieve the goal of leaving the world better than what we entered into when we were born. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Clinton ties to Dominion

I just posted to Wikipedia for the first time yesterday. I started a talk thread with the heading above on the Dominion Voting System page. It was labeled by you as WP:NOTFORUM. I am trying to understand what caused this. I do admit I didn't give the most cordial and polite response to having a link and virtual quote from the Clinton Foundation being labelled a conspiracy theory. And some other back and forth was not the most constructive, but I provided 3 links. Can you please enlighten me on how I can avoid this in the future.

Thank you Jray2175 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Jray2175, talk pages aren't there to discuss the subject of the article. Bring sources, debate existing ones, suggest rewording, etc etc is what they are for. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

General Notice

Is this notice related to anything specifically about my edits or is it a general notice to many? Seki1949 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seki1949, general notice, I give a lot out and have them at the top of my talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin help needed at Bhutan–India relations

The Government of India has threatened Wikipedia over the map on this page Bhutan–India relations. Vandalism is increasing. RFP is running late. thanks Aghore (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Who can create local accounts?

Hey, just wondering where to ask for local account creation for my bot, which can't log in as my IP range at my place of education is blocked for vandalism. Thanks, Seemplez 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Seemplez, try Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Seemplez The answer is, administrators (and stewards), apparently, using this: Special:CreateLocalAccount. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, but I've never done it, or at least if I had long in the past. I just thought bot specialists would be better. Thanks though for watching. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez: I've created it for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thank you! Seemplez 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Zhomron

Does it sounds like Zhomron is quacking in ancient phoenician? (paraphrasing from SPI comment in BedrockPerson )

What I'm seeing looks familiar: Moabite Language edit, Talk:Solomon's temple section (it's hard to tell what he wrote vs. anyone else, he's been characteristically careless in where he inserts his signature), Solomon's Temple edit, ... Tarl N. (discuss) 03:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tarl N., I think I need a bit more detail. Feel free to email me. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DS for R&I

Greetings. I don't think that [[User:Stonkaments]] has had the standard reminder of DS for R&I posted on his user talk page. Many of his recent edits seem to be directed in that topic area. Here are two examples.[44] [45] Regards, Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Imnotalive393939

Hi Doug. I suspected the user is a block evasion by User:Deathismetal14 (I posted in the user's talk page). Can you take a look at the user and other blocked socks? 2402:1980:336:A2C:E6DB:B4C0:9DC6:39ED (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with by another Admin. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Making words

"vendetta • ter"? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Want to help build the encyclopedia...

Hello,

Sir, I have legitimate good-faith additions intended to help build the encyclopedia. Sincerely Yours, Sir blue (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of Indian

The term Indian refers to a person with Indian nationality, not Native American. Native Americans associate themselves with their designated tribe, not an antiquated misnomer designating them as Indian. This was used by European settlers and not by the tribes themselves. The modern use is Native American or Natives. Historically it was also designated for Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc. However as they are not referred to as Indian now. Vajra Raja (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is so inaccurate. We still use the term "Indian" today even among ourselves. There is a strong push away from the use of "Native American" in the U.S. and towards the use of "American Indian" to refer to the various native nations represented within the borders of the contiguous United States. Native Hawaiians and natives in Alaska refer to themselves differently and even those references change depending on the preference of the individual. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another DS reminder

Hi Doug.

I have had a slight problem with the editor [[user:Generalrelative]], who is normally a reasonable editor.

I watch the article History of the race and intelligence controversy, that I created in Spring 2010 and which sparked off the WP:ARBR&I case. Generally I have stayed away from that article and anything related to it: it has been fairly stable. Yesterday, however, without warning, in a series of edits Generalrelative deleted 2 images relevant to the article. One was of Richard Lynn, controversial in R&I; the other was "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholarly Achievement*, the document which sparked the R&I controversy in the late 60s. The edit-summary was WP:UNDUE. I restored the images explaining their relevance. Generalrelative then created a WP:FORUM on Talk:Race and intelligence inviting other editors to join Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. I do not edit the article Race and intelligence, so am baffled.

I fear that this is political correctness gone wrong. Generalrelative is undoubtedly well-intentioned, but for the two images they seem to have made a misjudgement. I believe Generalrelative has not received a formal notification of DS for WP:ARBR&I, so could that now be done? Using Talk:Race and intelligence as a means to send messages about another article does not seem to be permitted by WP:ARBR&I.

Sorry to bother about you about this. Mathsci (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the appropriate way to invite members of the community to join in a discussion: [46] Please correct me if I'm wrong. As to the substance of Mathsci's other arguments, I'll let the discussion at the relevant talk page speak for itself: [47] Generalrelative (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Doug, thank you for your tireless work at mediating while remaining patient. I'm not sure the total of your work here can even be measured in a way that does it justice. It has been my pleasure to watch your colors on display. From what I have seen you are a wonderful human being. I am grateful for our discussions. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

Hi Mister Weller, wonderful that you are working for our good. I appreciate that. Sorry that I added something which you regarded as disruptive. Please let me know exactly what you mean. Best wishes and a wonderful evening I wish you. 202012101858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

<tps> You added a lot of qualifications, opinions and original research. The net effect is disruptive. Wikipedia articles aren't fora for expressing personal views or amplifying conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is disruptive fora for? "Amplifying". Sorry but I just don't follow what you have written. I will return and place all the sources next to my "original work" and remove any of my"personal views" such as stating that something cannot be seen, when anyone can see that it - cannot be seen. I am really sorry to have disrupted your day and like yourself wish to have the truth revealed. kk (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 19:42

Eek!!

Eek!! How bad is it that I reverted edits made by an admin? I go into protection mode over particular articles and I just feel it's best to bring up concerns in an article's talk page before making huge edits to that article removing accurate and researched information that took days to verify and meticulously add to the article. I didn't even check who made the edits, only what edits were made. I rarely remove information, even if unsourced, unless it is blatantly false. Even then I probably will mention something in the talk page about it. I do not add OR, myself. It must be sourced or it's a no-go for me. What is hard is when you have a familiarity with the subject and you know the truth but it's not really documented to that degree in what most would call RS. The sources you may find the information in are reliable from that particular subjects standpoint but not in general, if that makes sense. In other words, If I am baking a pizza with pineapple as a topping I might go to a website created by a pizza maker but I wouldn't go there to get advice on how to invest money in the stock market. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska, um, she knows a lot about the subject. She's a member of the Indigenous etc project, go to her talk page and explain. You can revert anyone, but I think she'd like to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I left a message. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Can I revert my own edits? She has turned the article into a travesty and is disrespectful and dishonoring to the Cherokee ancestors. I don't want my name associated with what is there presently. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
And now I see why I was told not to get involved with Wikipedia by other Cherokee that I spoke with. They said I would get frustrated and quit. I am there now. They were approached years ago when the Cherokee wiki was started but very soon after got frustrated because so many act like they know everything when they know nothing about the beliefs or history of the Cherokee as taught by the elders and what it leaves is something so dishonoring to our ancestors that it is sad. A shell with no substance and no depth. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to fight her. I am like Chief Joseph.
"I am tired of fighting...Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever." ~ Chief Joseph ~ Nez Perce
If she wants the article to be full of lies then so be it because half-truths are lies. They do not tell the complete story and it is disrespectful to my ancestors.

Hi Tsistunagiska, I'm Iggy. Did you know that there's actual factual Cherokee folks that edit Wikipedia? There are! Some are tradish, some not so much - the point is they are here. There is also a collective of other Indigenous folks who edit here. There is a general consensus that there are certain things that are not for public consumption because we greatly respect our ancestors, elders and Elders - we've grown up within our community and we understand the dynamics of what should be shared and what shouldn't along with the irreparable damage that is caused by oversharing. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a go to for cultural appropriation. You're not like Chief Joseph. You're a fairly new editor who is frustrated. It happens to all of us. Relax. Calm down. Reread what you've posted on Doug's page and ask yourself if that's really a look you want to present in order to be taken seriously. I understand that you are passionate about the topic, I get it. I really do. Unfortunately it's colouring your reaction and in your desire for excellence and I dunno to uber honor your ancestors (this is wikipedia, go out and leave them tobacco to honor them, they'll care more about that. They don't gaf about digital media, I guarantee. They would be more inclined to rejoice at protection of ceremonies than sharing there of) you were inserting questionable sources and content that the Nation its self protects. Anyway, belated welcome to Wikipedia. Hopefully you'll just take a break and rethink your approach. *There are no lies in the article. Be well. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just trying to share factual information that celebrates the beauty of who they are because they still live in us. I know there are those here from many indigenous peoples. I am, after all, a member of IPNA and IPA. You are not correct in one aspect, many are like Chief Joseph. We are tired and frustrated. I do not think in terms of how long a person is on Wikipedia as to whether they should or are tired in general. Perhaps that person has been fighting their entire life. Perhaps they have faced things that others would have crumbled under the weight of years ago. Please do not assume you know me, what I do or don't do on a daily basis in regards to celebrating my ancestors, the ceremonies I keep or the traditions and beliefs I honor. It's patronizing and I would never do that to you. The content that I included was not questionable. Whether individuals or groups wanted it there or not is another issue. If they are knowledgeable in the old ways then they know this. To say they do not want it there would be better than to say it is questionable. Also, I will not respond to your comment on the article talk page because I had said I would say no more and I am, if nothing else, a person of my word. Be well yourself. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize, I should have tagged you, Indigenous girl. In regards to what I have said either here or in the talk page, I will not revert them or renounce them. If they were said in weakness then I would rather be seen as real and as me. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Tsistunagiska, comparing an experience on Wikipedia, or any contemporary experiences for that matter - including being on the front lines at actions - is in no way similar to the experience of Chief Joseph. His experience was beyond being tired and frustrated. The Nez Perce War was violent and led to the physical death of a large portion of his community. More died as POWs as they were moved to Idaho. While as Indigenous/Native American/American Indians we have to deal with a whole lot of stuff contemporarily that is not even remotely pleasant, and we deal with this our entire lives, it is not remotely comparable. We deal with contemporary issues and we survive and we thrive and we plant seeds for the next generation. Some of us are survivors of some serious isht, some of us could have been MMIW statistics, but it is still not remotely comparable. In looking over the Cherokee by Blood site if you were raised in community by traditional people you should be more than aware of the inaccuracies presented under the religion section. There are traditional Keetoowah and folks over at Qualla who would be able to disprove so much of the information after building a trusting relationship if you are unaware of the discrepancies. If you read Vann's sources he lists an old geocities site run by a pretendian who belongs to a fake tribe. Just thought you should be aware of that. Indigenous girl (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Indigenous girl, I am not comparing, solely, an experience here on Wikipedia to what anyone has experienced in their lifetime of great losses. I am comparing the sum total (that includes here) of my life experiences with those of another life and determining that, where as their plight was different, we do have relatable results. I am tired. I am tired of fighting. I am exhausted with life and what I have and have had to go through to endure it. If you have not faced those situations then count yourself lucky. Again, you do not know me. You do not know what I have experienced personally in life and for you to assume that I can not make a comparison between my experiences and the words of another human being who experienced an enormous amount of loss and was at the point of giving up a fight he had dedicated and saw countless others of his people dedicate their lives to is beyond words. In regards to the other, I will approach people that I trust and seek their counsel and prefer not to take it from someone that I do not know here on Wikipedia, especially someone who makes assumptions about the life of another human being that they do not know in such a disrespectful tone. Again, not something I would ever do to you. Thank you so much for your "insightful" and "bold" attack upon my personal life experiences of which you know nothing. Discussing this further isn't even worth it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I was severely chastised for contributing anything, even in good faith, about the Cherokee here on Wikipedia, regardless of the degree of its factual nature, by my mother's sister so I will refrain from adding, taking away or even commenting on anything further to what is written, in regards to people, places, the culture or society and as far as I am concerned going forward it doesn't exist here. I thought I was doing a good thing by opening up the culture and history that I love and am passionate about to others to understand it. I may have gotten a little overzealous in trying to find support for what was written and may have used sources that were unreliable in the process, which has now been remedied. I apologize for causing anyone consternation, especially Doug, and it does not change the fact that I have no purpose to be here. This is me making peace and I hope it's accepted. Good day. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't delete my information

We have various source that confirmed that china is supporting Al badr

Check this link:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistani-troop-movement-in-ladakh-sources-say-china-in-talks-with-pak-terror-groups-1695712-2020-07-01

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-moves-20000-soldiers-to-gilgit-baltistan-loc/articleshow/76718059.cms

https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-under-pressure-from-china-pakistan-to-merge-gilgit-baltistan-with-the-mainland-2847336

https://theprint.in/defence/terror-recruitment-in-kashmir-very-high-al-badr-active-again-as-pakistan-revives-outfit/523249/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.103.25 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Messed up a DS alert—will it have been logged improperly?

Hi, I was delivering a DS/alert and I think I inadvertently forgot to fill in the code. I went back and filled in the already-subst'ed template, but I'm realizing it may have been improperly logged. If so, is there any way to fix that, or any further steps you know of that I should take? Thanks, --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit has a proper edit summary and it shows "Tag: discretionary sanctions alert". That means it was logged. There was a problem with the link to the Arbcom case which I fixed, so it's all good now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Amanda Kloots

I really don't think a full protection for a week was the right way to go with Amanda Kloots. The article is still very new and undergoing a lot of construction. Full protection makes it extremely hard to get any work done on the article, and a week is a significant amount of time. The edit warring was only between two users. Please reconsider it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, cut it to two days. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You got mail

Hi Doug, have sent you an email, hope you can help.

Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianHorne (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Amanda Kloots again

I'm afraid registered editors are making contentious changes that are currently the subject of two RfCs. Since changes like that aren't supposed to occur while the issues are being debated at RfCs, and two different editors have violated this — one of them currently the subject of an ANI for this behavior — I would like to ask for full protection to this article until the two RfCs are concluded. I believe it's the only way to tamp down the heat here.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that one of the contributors to the contentious Kloots RfC has just been blocked for sockpuppetry. Am I right in thinking that the general policy is to strike out such contributions? Obviously, as someone involved (and a lowly IP at that) I shouldn't do it myself. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll look tomorrow, going to sleep now. Practice is to strike through posts with replies, delete others. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to have already been done though. Sleep well... 165.120.15.66 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. I appreciate your protecting the article. If I may ask, since you rightfully deserved some sleep and didn't get to the article until later, I'm wondering if you might return to the article to its status quo when the RfC started, since editors have jumped the gun made contentious edits about the very same issues the open RfC is still debating. Thank you for any help.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox person/Wikidata

Doug Weller, let me thank you for taking the time to make recommendations like this [48] for me when necessary. All your different advices have helped me a lot. The desire to do a better job, motivates me to ask your help with an explanation of why the Infobox person/Wikidata template is not recommended, or if it can be used under certain conditions. In case you have time, there will be a willing and grateful mind to read carefully.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Not that this is the biggest deal in the world, but I do not appreciate being pinged to a discussion from which I have completely disengaged and in which my final contribution ended Please no one ping me back to this discussion. If, 60+ hours after my last post, my behavior was troubling you, I feel the appropriate thing would have been to discuss it with me on my talk page. (As I said, this is not the biggest deal in the world.) --JBL (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

JBL I didn't read all your posts and missed that one. --Doug Weller talk 13:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a restriction on what a blocked user can use his talk page for?

Re: [49] would you be so kind as to comment at Wikipedia:Help desk#Is there a restriction on what a blocked user can use his talk page for? I am in no way criticizing your comment: I am genuinely curious about what the actual wording of policy is. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only Warning

I would *highly* recommend not posting lies and propaganda on my talk page again, making unhinged accusations. Further flaming will result in consequences beyond your imagination. Tread very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

{Talk Page Stalker dropping a little insight) Bswastek, only tip I can give you: I seriously recommend you go stick your head in some snow and cool off. Just watch out for yellow snow. ;-) Really though? If I was Doug I would totally be scared of threats made on Wikipedia by an anonymous person who doesn't even know how to properly write on a talk page or sign their own name. I had one of those internal shudders that really hit me to my core as I read what you wrote, oh wait, no, that was just my stomach telling me it's almost lunch time. See ya! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller: Awwww, they were indefinitely blocked before seeing my tip. Yeah, didn't see that one coming at all. Anyways, good luck straightening out the messes. I'm out! Thinking about throwing in some homemade sweet cream from goats milk with some snow and making a sweet treat. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Phoenicianism article

Doug,

I am not interested in online arguments on Wikipedia. But please, I am respectfully asking you to stop reverting edits just for the sake of doing so.

You reverted some edits from Phoenicianism. The edits involved removing the following propaganda (written in bold just in case the reader misses how grotesque it is):

Phoenicianism embraces Phoenicia as an alternative cultural foundation by rejecting 850 years of Arabization.

Is this a direct quote from A House of many Mansions? why is it written in Bold in first place and why did you revert it back to its bold format? The latter book is not a reliable publication.

We can disagree on citing Kamal Salibi as a valid source (and other post civil-war Lebanese intellectuals who profit from selling books and should not be confused peer-reviewed research). That does not negate that the aforementioned sentence is a pan-arabist political statement and not a valid scientific counter argument. In other words, I would like to see some criticism for actual research such as this article regarding ancestral continuity in Lebanon and this article (published by Nature) that dates 7,300 years of unique ancestral heritage. We need to shift the debate in that direction.

Citing the likes of Kamal Salibi (Pan Arabist fiction writer) and Assad Bou Khalil (Conspiracy theory advocate,just check his twitter feed don't take my word for it) leaves the debate in opinionated political arguments that lead to nowhere. The subject of Phoenicianism is a highly divisive topic among Lebanese to begin with so lets shift the arguments and counter arguments to a right path. The big elephant(s) in the room is the grotesque propaganda in the criticism section so why don't we start from there.

Any thoughts/suggestions? Cheers --2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


The criticism section also includes the following paragraph: The Dutch university professor Leonard C. Biegel, in his 1972 book Minorities in the Middle East: Their significance as political factor in the Arab World, coined the term Neo-Shu'ubiyya to name the modern attempts of alternative non-Arab nationalisms in the Middle East, e.g. Aramaeanism, Assyrianism, Greater Syrian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Berberism, Pharaonism, Phoenicianism. Is recency bias permitted per Wikipedia Standards? Neo-Shu'ubiyya simply refers to populism and that paragraph is clearly subjective and does not add any value to the article. Please provide an explanation for this permissible subjectivity.

Moreover, you had no problem deleting a whole section from a technical paper published by Nature (on 07:40, 5 March 2016‎). The study did in fact provide context to the Jewish genome with respect to Lebanese and Levantine Populations but you dismissed it. Why did you dismiss that study completely?

--2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


Anti-gender movement POV Tag

Hi, you removed the POV tag from the article Anti-gender movement citing that it requires specific on talk page. However, if you look at the discussion page there's a topic about wording and neutrality there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-gender_movement#Wording_and_neutrality?

Therefore, isn't the POV tag completely valid? --Rusentaja (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rusentaja: No. I was going to explain but I see someone has explained on the talk page why that statement by the original poster isn't right, ie that we need sources for his ideas, not just thought/ideas, and that we aren't actually "neutral". Loads of examples - we aren't neutral about evolution, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination, etc. We're mainstream. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25301575/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_59&oldid=1142974107"