User talk:Doug Weller

The current date and time is 1 July 2024 T 00:43 UTC.

User:Doug Weller	User talk:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Workshop	Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Userboxes	Special:Contributions/Doug Weller	Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

---

Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic. If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place. If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection. If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :) If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can: Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards. Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators. If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?

First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Merger proposal

Hi Doug, just to let you know you've created a duplicate merger proposal at Talk:White supremacy – an IP had already beaten you to it, so now there are two threads on the proposal on the talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I fixed that as soon as I saw it, I was helping the IP who couldn't put a merge tag on the protected article. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you know of any WP policy/guidance/essay that says/hints that old "secondary" sources like Josephus and Herodotus should mostly be seen/used as primary sources in WP-context? Or is this just something I've dreamed up myself? For transparancy, this [1] discussion made me wonder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Davidbena has been in a discussion about this before. @Zero0000, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Tgeorgescu, and Greyshark09: you've all discussed this, can you help? Probably not here though. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Have no time to get mixed up in the redirected page debate but no ancient text should be ever cited on Wikipedia without a reliable secondary academic commentary on it. I wrote up Dionysius Thrax to stub level recently and conserved the famous primary source about the cup of Nestor that scholar is said to have fashioned. But I added both Rudolf Pfeiffer and R. H. Robins as the required secondary authority in doing so. The reason is very simple: every other sentence, however clear the grammar, has a long history of modern textual commentary on it, and, in many crucial passages interpretations as to the reliability of the report are various and contested. One can of course use such primary sources with attribution, but the information thus presented will be defective by omission, partial and partisan if the editor does not show how it is interpreted, skeptically or otherwise. For a classicist Herodotus/Josephus are primary sources, but at the same time, they are secondary sources in the sense that much of what they write reworks earlier sources (which by turn then are 'primary'). I don't think Wikipedia policy on this shows any awareness of the bullshit that emerges if you define a premodern text as 'secondary' because we know it drew on other works which have disappeared. Xerxes' army numbered 3 million according to Herodotus (7.334.1) or the land forces at roughly half that, 1,700,000 (7.60.1). It's actually more complex that even that, on Herodotus's own internal evidence. Logistically, we know that the maximum army could not have exceeded 200-250,000. Josephus's 1,100,000 Jewish casualties for the siege of Jerusalem by Titus is tantamount to the total carrying capacity of Palestine at that time, and clearly exaggerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a final note posted here, to avoid possible suspicions by one editor there I am being intrusive. Just a quick read through several articles and sources underlines that one should not cite responsa as is done, unless via a scholarly source. The rabbi in question Joseph Colon is a fascinating figure in his own right, noted for the unexceptional length of his responsa, so who controls what is being excerpted from that text? Secondly, in northern Italy at that time, despite his eminence, there were two influential halakhic cultures. One was of Savoyid origin, Colon being the palmary representative. The other was the distinct Ashkenazic tradition brought in by German migrants. At times their views clashes, so an editor can't just cite a primary source as evidence for a clothing fashion, without contextualizing the specific halakhic viewpoint within the more general rabbinical tradition of that area and time. The reigning expert on Colon is Jeffrey Woolf, and neither here nor on the Joseph Colon article is his research used (except in the bibliography), when it is readily available online.See the several sources by Woolf listed in Jacob R. Marcus, Marc Saperstein, The Jews in Christian Europe: A Source Book, 315-1791, ISD LLC, 2016 978-0-822-98123-7 p.323

• Jeffrey Woolf, The Authority of Custom in the Responsa of R. Joseph Colon (Maharik), Dine Israel, 1998
• Damsels in Distress: Jewish Women in the Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Colon, pp.103-117
• 'New Light on the Life and Times of Rabbi Joseph Colon (Maharik),' Italia 13-15 2001 pp151-180 pp.171-177

More specifically there is an excellent study of the problem in

Beth A. Berkowitz Defining Jewish Difference: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 2012 978-1-107-01371-1 pp.176-189. And see also

Moses Avigdor Shulvass, The Jews in the World of the Renaissance Brill Archive, 1973 978-9-004-03646-8 pp.186ff.

Most of our articles on these areas either lift from an encyclopedia, come from direct familiarity with a primary source, or just from random google clicks, despite the fact that beautiful secondary scholarship covers nearly everything. I think the fault is that one is tempted to google so specifically for a quick laconic answer, that one never throws a broad net to trawl up numerous sources which, if you then sit down and read through them for several hours, will give you an education while providing context, background and details, and much new material for articles, new or established, one never gets with quick fixes. Alas. I found out, for example, that there is much solid documentation showing that despite halakhic rules, there was a widespread tendency from Poland to Italy, for Jews to wear the same dress as other Poles, Germans, French or Italians as the case may be. Often the gorgeousness of Jewish women's dress was so admired, Christian neighbours borrowed from their Jewish friends in order to cut a figure when going to mass. I.e. the standard clichés of the received narrative Jews were compelled to wear distinctive dress (often legally true) by Christian laws, corresponding to the rabbinical insistence that they might not adopt alien dress codes, was in reality often ignored.(Edward Fram, Ideals Face Reality: Jewish Law and Life in Poland, 1550-1655, ISD LLC, 1997 978-0-878-20097-9, gives a charming Polish sample) Hope this helps.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this from a historian's perspective - no, we should not consider Josephus and Herodotus (or similar) sources as secondary sources in the Wikipedia sense. A large part of a historian's training is learning how to use sources such as those - at least if you're studying in fields outside of modern history. In my own editing interests - no one would consider using Bede without filtering him through a modern historian.. or they shouldn't be at least. (The entire Classical WP indulges entirely too much in the use of primary sourcing for my comfort, but it's so freaking entrenched over there that it's not worth the fight.) This would extend well into the Enlightenment, quite honestly - technically Edward Gibbon is a secondary source, but except for quotes for color, he really shouldn't be used for a source on wikipedia. (The fact that James Ussher is being used as a source is frightening... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive replies NishidaniEaldgyth (and apologies to Doug Weller. Btw, "noted for the unexceptional length of his response"?)! It seems to me that you are saying that this is pretty much WP:Use common sense (or at least you wish it was), but none of you know any helpful WP:HOW TO DEAL WITH JOSEPHUS AND SIMILAR to point to. WP:AGEMATTERS doesn't really help in this case. I remember once I talked with an editor who wanted to insert criticism in 300: Rise of an Empire based on Herodotus, which I felt was wrong on so many levels.

I think WP should mention this somewhere, at least at guideline-level. I suppose I could try to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources or somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slip. It's 'exceptional length of his responsa' and that comes from the second article I think by Woolf, though I can't remember the page no.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Or someone will start one for me: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#pre-modern_historians_as_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a good essay at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) - its helpful. The problem is that what is "primary" has a much more elastic definition in ancient and medieval/post-classical studies compared to modern historiography. For say... the American Revolution, works written 100 years after the events are definitely secondary (if perhaps outdated), where in ancient/medieval history, they are likely primary. The problem comes in when Wikipedia makes a hard and fast declaration of primary/secondary/tertiary that allows for the consideration of someone like Herodotus as "secondary" when no scholar working in that subject area would consider him such. And then, of course, you get folks who argue that Wikipedia policies should be prioritized over what actual experts consider/do... which just leads to messes. I own many of the primary sources for my main "subject area" - but I never consult them when editing for wikipedia - it's just too much of a temptation to sneak just a tiny little bit of interpretation into my editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That essay also seems unwilling to take Herodotus by the horns, as it were. It mentions "Any primary source" but that's it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I told Davidbena to be careful about WP:OR, see e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdub2018/Archive. In the end, I got tired of reminding him the basic WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How quickly, it seems, that you forget the case. We were discussing issues on a Talk-Page, when I was no more than 1 or 2 months old on Wikipedia, and, as usual in such discussions, we began to throw ideas back-and-forth between us, and which views have absolutely NOTHING to do with Wikipedia:OR.Davidbena (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The gist is: you are not an ignorant about Judaism, but if we don't have 20th and 21st century WP:RS to go by, what you write is consigned to the limbo of the unverifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My friend, I assure you that I will do my utmost best to add more recent opinions as touching upon Jewish Halacha. Only, I think that it is fair to mention here that religious Jews, as a whole, not secular Jews, rely heavily upon halachic works written well-over 500 years ago. You see, tradition still means much to most religious Jews. Still, we can prove this by citing more recent sources on Jewish Halacha. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The point being made is very simple, David. On Wikipedia, you cannot or should not cite a primary source for this material, but cite it via a secondary source. If you want to note the halakhic status of non-kosher hydrolyzed collagen i.e. gelatin in kosher marshmallows, you can't just cite or translate some primary source like the deliberation of Rav Moshe Feinstein for this, for the simple reason that Rav Ovadia Yosef and others disagreed. What you have to do is cite a secondary source for either or both, and never just cite one text penned by this or that halakhic authority. In short, editors must not cite primary sources unless they draw on a secondary source which explains them in context. This is a technical matter and has nothing to do with some dispute about the status of halakha, as you seem to think.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: It's standard practice in the real world. The closer in time a "reporter" is to the events on which they are reporting, and the further in time those events recede from the present, the less reliable the source, because a) the writer is too close to the events, with a view about them colored by their perceptions in their time, which may be radically different from ours today, and b) more facts come to light with more research, and c) the actual cultural/historical/encyclopedic impact of something isn't clear until long after the event (and may change over time as society changes under those influences). For some clear indications of why we can't treat ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval writers as reliable secondary sources, just skim through our articles on Historia Regum Britanniae and Historia Brittonum, works that were generally taken at face value in their time. But it's not just about ancient manuscripts. The "primarizing" of modern news reportage can happen quickly, if the original reports were faulty and better information becomes available. It's important to remember that no sources are intrinsically reliable, for everything, forever. They're sometimes reliable for certain things, used certain ways, in certain contexts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Hello. You have stated your reason for rejecting my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". In fact, Roxy the Dog has since quoted this statement as an argument against my latest proposal. However, I don't understand how this serves as a justification for reverting someone's edit, and, moreover, such an action violates WP:ROWN. Even without regard for Wikipedia policies, though, isn't it still preferable to keep the version about which there exists the least disagreement? If both versions are fine, but one version attracts serious criticism from a group of users and one doesn't, what's the logic behind keeping the former? Note that I am not criticising you but instead trying to gain insight into your reasoning, so that I can then address it better in my proposal.^Ol^Ja 14:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are having difficulty understanding the phrase, I will translate for you. It means that there is nothing wrong with the way it is and doesn't need changing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

2 people including James want James's wording, 3 want the current wording. What is "serious" is usually in the eye of the beholder. There's clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the change. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

2 people want my wording. 2 more people are neutral. 1 person opposes, but hasn't stated what issue they have with my wording. I am not arguing that there is a consensus yet, of course. But you are not answering my question. How can 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' count as an argument?^Ol^Ja 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly no WP:CONSENSUS so no change. I'm telling you that it is acceptable as it stands. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Specifically, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" and "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change". So far, the two editors who agree with the proposal have made arguments, while the three who don't have just stated that the proposal is not an improvement (which is not an argument as per WP:ROWN), and have not objected to the change. Please tell me where I am wrong.^Ol^Ja 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

James, You say above "1 person opposes" which is of course either deliberate lies, or WP:CIR, (you don't appear to be competent enough in basic counting.)I cannot decide which. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: One person has commented 'support', and one (me) has proposed the change, so altogether 1+1=how many people support the change? Good, Roxy, 2. Now one person has commented 'oppose', and the other person who commented 'oppose' said they are OK with my version. So, altogether, how many people are not OK with my version? Wow, brilliant, seems like you got this one as well, it's 1 person! Good progress, Roxy! Maybe we can get to multiplication next time!^Ol^Ja 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI case

Would you please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 A checkuser has decided to close it just because those obvious WP:DUCKs are stale on EN WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: just ask a steward as you were advised by someone with much more experience than I have. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Sutherland

A few days ago you objected to my edits on this page. These are useful edits that I have revised and put back:

Para 1: added “in some circles” to “controversial” to increase accuracy

Research para 1: refined the subject’s research history and deleted irrelevant material (her discoveries at Quttinirpaaq and on Axel Heiberg Island); deleted incorrect material (her presentations in 2000 and 2012, the statement that she suggests pre-Norse contact, and the sentence about “spoils of war”); added the most important (2009) academic publication on the evidence for Norse presence in Arctic Canada; added 2018 reference

Research para 2: deleted paragraph which was added January 16 by Jerry Stockton. This addition is part of a trolling effort against Sutherland’s research, and in any case is not particularly relevant to a biography (note that this material was also added to the bio of James Tuck, where it is even more irrelevant.)

Personal: deleted irrelevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArctosNU (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CRYBLP

Check this edit. What's your opinion? Nearly every respectable scholar says him to be a leading Hindutva idealogue. ∯WBG^converse 05:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you’re going to call someone names, the least you can do is spell them correctly. (See wikt:ideologue.)—Odysseus1479 06:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, typo:-( @DW:--See trhis t/p thread.∯WBG^converse 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!^Ol^Ja 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Case of Active Vandalism

User:Doug Weller, please check the edit history of Jewish religious clothing. There is a case of active vandalism right now. Can someone please stop this guy? The editor who is being very disruptive calls himself D Gums (talk · contribs · Gums WHOIS). Can someone please stop him? ---- Davidbena (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: blocked him for the use of "Yid" in his edits. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot

user:RonBot this bot is adding broken image tags to articles that doesn't contain images with broken links. Could you check it and possibly shut it down until this problem be fixed. It's already all over my watchlist. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: to be sure I asked a bot specialist, but I see you wisely reported it at ANI and it's shut. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

NRM and neutrality:

It's an issue where obscure religions and new religious movements can have a few editors with a strong POV who can sit on a page and revert anyone else making changes to it. The religions are obscure, so few people visit those pages and notice anything wrong, so it takes just 1-2 people to sit on a page and prevent changes.

I'll just randomly come across a page and find that it'll read like some religious apologetics, and try to make changes. I noticed it on the 5 Percent nation as well as the Providence (religious movement) pages. Both have had those issues resolved. Long term I'm not sure how to deal with this. Maybe some kind of task force for just new religious movements to ensure they're neutral? Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Some similar issues with Sahaja Yoga and Nirmala Srivastava. At the very least, they read sorta like they're written by proponents. I'm gonna keep an eye on them and learn more about the group. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: have fun. I'm struggling with Iyami Aje. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ban

I decided to live it out without commenting or appealing. I see your point. I'll show more respect next time. I target no religious or ethnic group. D Gums (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RE: You've cited a book by Teresa Washington as publishedby Indiana University Press - it's published by Oya's Tornado

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

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

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

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

Amusement

Despite the laugh I'm getting from this, I feel this person needs some guidance from an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification please

Hi Doug,

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

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

Hi

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

Revdel

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

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

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

Hide IP address ASAP

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

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

Marxist traitor

You and Maunus closed down Rightpedia didn't you by sending complaints about my Mikemikev account . Well I am back on Metapedia. I will create an article about you. You have been smearing European people on Wikipedia for years. Abd will sue this place https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.207020/gov.uscourts.mad.207020.1.0.pdf . Wikipedia will be closed down. LamprechtMetapedia (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)