User talk:Doug Weller

D O U G W E L L E R

Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

Happy Halloween!

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.

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Zach Vega's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at SteveMcCluskey's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A problem.

Could you please take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuba_rugs_and_carpets&action=history --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please? and by the way this looks like copyvio and is also unsourced [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if i am spamming you but could you please take a look here[2] and here [3], thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice requested!

Hi Dougweller, I've picked you at random for your expertise and I was hoping to get your advice (but not your direct intervention, as that might be forum shopping). In mid-August I removed some text at The Big Bang Theory because it struck me as WP:SYNTHESIS, as the text attempted to conclude something that was not explicitly stated in its sources, and the only sources were cherrypicked positive reviews that supported the summary. It was weirdly circular. Basically, "Critics started liking the series as time went on. 'I liked this season' said a critic."

A semi-retired user reverted my edit, but didn't explain how it was not synthesis. I've attempted to discuss on the talk page, but the user didn't give me a clear explanation. I attempted to discuss on his talk page, but I still didn't get a clear explanation. I've twice attempted to invite people from WikiProject Television [4][5] to tepid response, and I've opened an RfC[6], but I've gotten poor response and non-committal answers. What's a next reasonable step? I really want to get this off my plate. Seems silly that something that seems like such a no-brainer to me could be stone-walled like this. I only have two people who sort-of agree with me, can I make my change yet or do I have to wait for more input? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, off to bed soon and out am, so I won't be able to look at this much until tomorrow pm at the earliest. I took a quick peek at the talk page but not the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No probs, I can wait.  :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I thought I'd replied. The RfC got one response, favorable. You've also got support elsewhere on the talk page. 2 days until the 30 day length for an RfC, I'd wait. And no one has to be notified about an RfC discussion, that's what watchlists are for. Let me know if there is a problem. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So if I wait until the RfC expires, you think I'm good to make the edit? That's what it sounds like you're sayin'. Out of curiosity, do you think my argument holds water? I promise not to cite your opinion or mention you or drag you into this mess, I'm just curious if I'm way off. Thanks, I appreciate your help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes. People seem to think they don't need sources for something like this, and also that they can say 'it increased' based on sources that give awards, etc, but then when later series don't get these... Others will of course disagree with me. I think what you can do probably is show ratings from reliable sources for each series and then note (without using the word 'note' of course) increases, decreases etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, I waited for the RfC to expire, then I made my changes, removing the unsubstantiated synthesis. Hopefully that'll be the end of it, because this dude has sucked up far too much of my time and I certainly don't want to play any AN/I games with him. Thank you for your input; I appreciate your guidance! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your're very welcome. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice on Timeline_of_human_prehistory

I am looking for something very much like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_human_prehistory . I'd like to add Things from E.O. Wilson's Social Conquest of Earth and notes about various genes, like fox2p that many believe strongly correlates with language development, etc, etc*0.5. The user Das Baz, aka Erudil seems to have disappeared.

I'm more interested in the timeline that the "main articles", so, is it legit to just add stuff to the timeline? You can send me to the Teahouse or other, but, you have so many entries on the talk page, I thought I would ask you first. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's legit, but you really need to source each entry. What worries me is using Wilson's book after seeing [7] and []. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. The problem people have with the book is group selection. The basic issue is whether all of our groupishness is attributable to our propensity for kin selection. [8] is a great read. I'm pretty much agnostic about it. I'd be using it as a source for the more basic facts like controlling fire. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Even if the world is mean, this kitten still doesn't care cause that's what cats are like. Anyway, you're a fine editor and admin and usually a voice of reason, and I appreciate it.

Drmies (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The feelings mutual. Sohambanerjee1998 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I got no idea what prompted this discussion, but I have to agree wholeheartedly. Granted, I think you are probably, most of the time anyway ;), maybe a bit brighter than the average kitten, but the little bastards do have a habit of keeping going in difficult situations, and drat it apparently having several more lives than the rest of us, so they can afford to overlook the little difficulties. I hate to think how messed up this place would be without you, and on that basis I really hope you don't give us any cause to actually deal with that nightmarish idea. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you ever run out of those 9 lives of yours I will be more than happy to donate mine to yours. What'd you say? Sohambanerjee1998 13:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ancient India

Edit by you,[9] i would like to say that one of the line in the same page reads "English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1885), writing under...", another one is "At least one early Christian writer, Basil of Caesarea (329–379)".. so it's not like writers are not accepted for the page. I would like to add some more suggestion, that supports the similar theory, this one by Science historian [10], Helaine Selin. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In those cases we are talking about the author's own views on the shape of the earth, we are not using them as experts on ancient history or ancient India. However, the encyclopedia can be used, but the entry is not by Selin but by K. V. Sarma and should be added "K. V. Sarma wrote "quotation" I think. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

K. V. Sarma seems legit. Richard L. Thompson is legit too? ThanksJusticejayant (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

^^ Anyways, i am soon gonna make a summary about the edit, which would include KV Sarma, and Thompson as a source. Right now, there's bigger issue, this guy "Lindberg G Williams Jr" is trying to insert "better sources needed", even though the given sources are already enough. I think you should revert his edit[11], and tell him to bring it to talk pages, i don't wanna do 2nd revert as i already had 1 revert there. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Thompson isn't a reliable source for this. He's in fact extremely dubious. Vedic creationists are good sources for Vedic creationism but not for Indian history. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

K. V. Sarma writes that Vedas(written approx 1500 BCE) provides a good study about earth;-

"One finds in Veda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from non-existence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month. In the Aitareya Brahmana, we read of the moon's monthly elongation and the cause of day and night."(ref)

---Medieval India---

Scientists such as Aryabhatta, Bhaskara, Makkibhatta, Brahmagupta, Varahmihira and others had also wrote about Earth's spherical form, and it's revolving, besides measuring it's diameter in a greatly precise way for their time.[12]

^^ This would be fine? Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to name your sources in your edit, as you did for Sarma, but it's Rgveda and as he doesn't say when those bits were written you shouldn't either. And the second bit would need to name the source, maybe do a direct quote - and of course say 'medieval'. Watch for the difference between its and it's, and never use contractions in an encyclopedia (do as I say, not as I do...), so use "it is", not "it's". And this isn't an official statement, it's comment by an experienced editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This one is done, now another topic, similar though, the page Spherical Earth, i just checked it's full history, and it's obvious that you have been active big time. The page included the book by Helaine Selin as source, mentioned above, as well as other sources. Although the source of Selin became unavailable, it couldn't be verified, thus it was removed. So what you think now, about this version[13] or [14]. I think the similar version regarding "India" as well as lead paragraph can be brought back. Because "Early Astronomy and Cosmology" doesn't seem to be available, nor there's any 2nd source other than this wikipedia page which would confirm that it's talking about Rigveda."Early+Astronomy+and+Cosmology"+page+68&rlz=1C1GGGE_enIN421&es_sm=93&ei=wPFSUqf7KsqUrAflnID4Aw&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=679&dpr=1. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Material without taking consensus

You have repeatedly deleted the Torman page of your own accord without any consultation with administration, the page is completely referenced, i will continually reinstate the page until you take it to Admin and propose it for deletion,,if after consensus it is agreed that the page should be deleted i will not reinstate the page--Prograce (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You are deleting pages without making any credible argument,, calling it a hoax of your own accord is not acceptable,,it is completely sourced,, if you have a problem take it to admin--Prograce (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All articles created by this sock puppet have been deleted either by me or another Administrator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prestigiouzman/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Simcha and "Bulldozer archaeology"

Doug, the Bulldozer archaeology page is the product of two of Simcha's paid employees, for the purposes of defaming Prof. Yuval Goren. They're obviously new to WP, and are just trying to legitimize the claims against Goren by self-citing. --XKV8R (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sure there were serious WP:BLP issues here but didn't realise this was the situation, although it was obviously created to push Jacobovici in some way. Disappointing I guess that his employees believed he someone invented or re-introduced the term bulldozer archaeology. I see the speedy delete was declined but that was correct, there's every reason to have an article on the subject, but as I told N Austin, it needs to be built up as a real article (which it wasn't quite) substantially first. I don't want us used to bring off-wiki arguments here by participants (so if you want to edit it in any way that is generally about the subject, fine, but let's stay away from this argument at the moment). Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre - RfC/U Dispute Resolution on WP:CIVIL question

Hi - I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate request and constitutes canvassing, however, I was hoping to engage you in informal dispute resolution on a WP:CIVIL issue in a two-editor thread that appears not to be self-resolving. For full disclosure, I'd previously made a request of User:OrangeMike, but I believe he's offline now. I chose you at random to request informal dispute resolution as a precursor to RfC/U (if necessary), if you have a few minutes available (I certainly understand if you do not). I've posted a brief summary below and I'm certain the other involved editor will shortly provide his perspective, as well.

Background: The entry Ronan Farrow has recently been heavily edited through insertion of promotional language by a large number of single-purpose sockpuppets. A seven-identity sock was recently uncovered and banned. The two remaining editors, myself and Tenebrae, had been engaged in a cooperative process of resolving much of the promotional language that had been inserted in the article, but came to a disagreement on one sentence. I believed the source of our disagreement to be grammatical in nature. Tenebrae believed the source of our disagreement was content-based and thought my suggested edit constituted POV insertion. Since there were only two active editors, and to resolve this impasse, I posted a RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC has become - I believe - derailed through aggressive name-calling by Tenebrae who - prior to the RfC - had been extremely gregarious and civil. Specifically, in the last 24 hours:

• accusing me of being a single-purpose account that exists for the sole purpose of inserting "derogatory" content in Ronan Farrow [x3]
• describing my contributions in the RfC as "child-like" [x1]
• describing my contributions in Ronan Farrow as "biased" [x3]
• summarizing my contributions in the RfC with "la la la" [x1]
• calling me an "extremist" [x1]
• calling me a "liar" [x1]
• describing my opinion in the RfC as a "smokescreen" and 3x declaring he will get an admin to block me if I do not publicly state my agreement with him that my suggested edit is POV
• several other name-calling episodes that can be read in the original RfC but I have not included here for sake of brevity

Attempted Resolutions to Date: I requested, seven times, not to be name-called, however, this has not helped resolve the situation and I believe the inundation of personal attacks is scaring away other editors from commenting on the RfC. After all of the above were posted, I told Tenebrae I would not engage with him further until he "calmed down a little." This has also not helped resolve the situation. At this point there are only 2 confirmed editors participating in the RfC - Tenebrae and myself - and a single IP editor has posted his first comment ever to WP in this thread as well, though dealing with the RfC and not the User Conduct question. (For full disclosure, I have expressed a sense of reserved skepticism about a first-time IP editor appearing in a lightly-trafficked, but sock-heavy, thread almost immediately after the RfC was opened.)

Other Factors: Separate from this issue, I posted two quotes from Tenebrae (about me) in my userspace as part of page decor/personalization. Tenebrae told me he was offended and requested I remove them. I apologized and stated I would remove them, though Tenebrae edited my userspace himself before I could (which I don't have a problem with as I had planned on editing it anyway). This occurred following the spate of name-calling and it was not my intent to offend Tenebrae, but I acknowledge it had that effect and take ownership for using his content in my userspace.

Tenebrae is a user with a long-history of achievements on WP; certainly a history that eclipses my own. I am convinced of his maturity and goodwill. At the present time, we're - however - unable to move forward with actual edits as we are the only two editors and the RfC has descended into one party name-calling the other and making accusations of poor faith, and the other editor simply repeating requests not to be subjected to name-calling and accusations of poor faith. No content dialog is occurring. Thank you for any counsel you can provide to us. BlueSalix (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry but at the moment I'm shortly off to bed (and hoping that the toothache that didn't keep me up last night isn't a problem). And I'm out all morning, so not really around for about 14 hours or so from now. If I can still be helpful then I'll see what I can do but as you can tell from the posts above I'm getting swamped. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I certainly understand. Thank you for your consideration. BlueSalix (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am weighing in on the dispute with Tenebrae as a fellow editor assisting in insert neutral tone after BlueSalix's repeated disruptive, single-purpose editing of the article Ronan Farrow. User Tenebrae appears to have been the only objective counterbalance over the course of several days of apparently biased editing from BlueSalix, who has in hundreds of edits inserted derogatory quotes and characterizations and stripped out neutral discussion of the article's subject. BlueSalix caused considerable damage to the article's neutrality, and to Tenebrae's reputation in the course of his canvassing for support in the wake of this dispute. Other editors such as myself have only been able to begin inserting neutral voice to the article due to Tenebrae's considerable help in chastening BlueSalix for his or her disruptive behavior. AsadR (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I should mention that BlueSalix is admin-shopping rather than using a noticeboard, and that he never notified me of this. I'd note that much of what BlueSalix says is spin and out of context, and suggest interested parties read the RfC thread at Talk:Ronan Farrow to see for themselves. That said, you're one of three admins BlueSalix has gone to, so it might get crowded there.... --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulldozer Archaeology". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 October 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doug, reading through the mediation request, it took me some time to realise where your disagreement was, as it looked like an extra para on the long statement above. I have tweaked the layout of the page to make things clearer. This involved, I suppose, forging your signature to the "Disagree" statement just under Naustin's "Agree", so I hastily let you know and you can revert me if you like. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-Science

Hi Dougweller,

I'm delighted with the sanitation undertaken by you in the Haplogroup I-M438 article. A certain user (no names mentioned) had been formerly very stubborn in maintaining the unreliable sources in question. Part of them (namely Kenneth Nordvedt) have now also been introduced by other Slav nationalists in the genetics section of the Croats article. Could you consider kicking the hornet's nest and clean out the pseudo-science once and for all? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 04:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dean Gaffney: Thanks for catching further vandalism

Thanks for catching my reversion to prior vandalism. I usually try to keep that possibility in mind or at least glance at the finished product as a double check. I am afraid that even after having become aware of the problem some time ago, I have missed this a few times (out of many). I know we need to strive for no mistakes rather than a very few. I think biography articles may be somewhat more susceptible to multiple vandalisms within a short period of time if the person is living and has some "anti-fans" for lack of a better word. It seems I just missed it this time. A reminder is good to have on such occasions. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Buck Ewing

I am still waiting for a GOOD reason as to why Buck Ewing's death is not allowed in the 1906 death section. Every other MLB Hall of Fame player is listed in their respective years. It seems unbelievably unfair that I could be blocked because I strongly believe he should be listed as well and am therefore persistent. This issue defies logic and reason. I imagine you laughing and enjoying messing with me over this. It almost seems personal, because it absolutely makes no sense that ANYONE should have a problem with Ewing's inclusion. So, without threatening to block me again, can we have a discussion on the topic?

Take a deep breath, read WP:AGF, and take it to the article's talk page which is where it should be discussed. The statement about blocking was about edit-warring. Not so much a threat as an explanation of our edit-warring policy IIRC. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quack?

frameless

Have you bought up JohnEUnited, Naustin1980, and Michelle d74 to SPI? If you haven't already, I will. It seems pretty blatant to me, due to the edits at Bulldozer archaeology. Apologies if you have, I had an emergency come up and haven't been able to really keep up. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Naustin works for Simcha Jacobovici and as the article was created by an editor who knows nothing about the subject other than what's been in the media in order to showcase a controversy where he's a major player I believe the first editor is also. Michelle is likely related in some way also. I don't think they are socks. Thanks though. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The whole thing is pretty convoluted to me; you're the more experienced player here so I trust in your judgement! --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 06:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

See [15] and [16]. Note that Jacobovici is being at best disingenuous about his inventing the term, skirting around it by saying I didn't offer any proof he didn't. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Jacobovici has since blogged about it in an effort to put pressure on Wikepedia editors, who he feels are treating him unfairly (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wiki-wars/). Jacobovici stirs controversy and makes sensational claims for a living. This is what he does. Editors at Wikipedia should see that he's attempting (via proxy WP:meatpuppets) to rope Wikipedia into his latest row.--XKV8R (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Trust that no one feels like they're under any pressure; it's upsetting that he feels the need to present Wikipedia in that light, but no one will make concessions to him just because he runs a blog. After all, I blog about Wikipedia too and my opinion carries no more clout than anyone else's. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also just read your exchange with Naustin1980. "Soviet" style, huh? Just wait until she starts making thing up and escalating it another three notches. That's who your dealing with. It's all a coordinated PR campaign. John McGinley (who also works for Simcha and who sent the email touting Nicole's mark-up of the article) does PR for Simcha. (here's a screen cap from one of Simcha's docs: http://robertcargill.com/?attachment_id=9917). They're all working with/for Simcha. :/ --XKV8R (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Excavation (archaeology) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and was going to cause considerable damage to the archaeology. Rosemary Hill describes how [{Geoffrey Wainright]] "oversaw large, high-speed excavations, taking bulldozers to the site in a manner that shocked
• Which way is up? Context formation and transformation: The life and deaths of a hot bath in Beirut]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Llanos de Moxos may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ==External links]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Excavation (archaeology) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unknown years of Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for Blake by the name 'Lambeth' (house of the lamb - see 4:14-15 note). Compare Isaiah 52.7 ('How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that ..."</ref><
• 11 - Issue 1 |publisher=Maxwellinstitute.byu.edu |date=1993-07-08 |accessdate=2012-11-16}}</ref> }While Mormon scholars have interpreted it to mean Jesus, most historians and archaeologists agree

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Libel on Daniel Case's talk page

I'm afraid I have to ask you to strike the libellous comment you made about me on the talk page of Daniel Case. In the section IP at Nina Rosenwald, you said "This IP is pretty obviously and openly anti-Muslim." You make this remark in reference to me, the only IP actively editing that page. I am not anti-Muslim and you have no basis for making such a claim. Your remark is offensive and untrue. Please strike through it. As an admin, you should know better. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I did ask you to stay off my page, you could have asked me at Daniel Case's page. You certainly appear to be anti-Muslim and that is my opinion. I'll explain this at his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have asked you at Daniel Case's page but his page cannot be edited by IPs. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "libel" practically constitutes a legal threat under these circumstances. However, it cannot be libel, as an IP address cannot have a reputation to be defamed. It has to be a specifically identifiable person whose identity is public. In this case your identity remains unknown; being called anti-Muslim on the basis of online statements attached to only an IP address which for all we know may not even be uniquely yours, or even if it is may still be used by others, cannot possibly cause you any real-life harm that you could be compensated for. Doug doesn't even have to make the usual distinction between stating that it's his opinion and stating it as fact (if, indeed, it can be factually proven or disproven to the sastisfaction of a court that someone is prejudiced).

So, the short of it is that while I should at least warn you over the legal threat, I won't because it's a transparently empty one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Already did, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Scroll down the talk page to the second Whois notice. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

• Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

• WikiProject report: Australian Roads

• Featured content: Under the sea

• News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

• In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Nina Rosenwald

It seems as though discussions about this BLP may have gone out of hand. I feel like I'm in the wrong for accepting this article in the first place. Was I really? Because I feel like I was. :/ -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 12:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - but Reddogsix's addition of the "too few opinions" tag maybe should have alerted you to the lack of criticism, and a search of her name now brings up the Blumenthal article. But that pales into insignificance compared to the obvious copyvio I've found in AfC articles, or the recent one created to publicise something where a search on the title would have shown that the first line was completely wrong. That sadly ended up with stuff on the web about it when I removed the publicity attempt. We need AfC and you all generally do a good job I think, but I'm not clear how obvious copyvio or gets by, or information that a simple search on the title would reveal gets overlooked (this was a claim that someone had coined a phrase, a search on the phrase made it obvious that was wrong). But don't beat yourself up over this one, and in fact if it weren't for one editor we might not have had so many problems. Hm, now that's interesting, the IP's first edit was to an AfD where Roscelese had already posted. Something to think about. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you help :). I think that ip used to be slightly different, seeing what they said on my talk page earlier. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulldozer Archaeology, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I will take you up on your offer

Per your offer at Talk:Islamophobic incidents, please do your magic with Twinkle! Thanks!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

What do you think should be done about Loomspicker? I've already raised the issue at AN, but nothing was done since he oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days. He's clearly a single-purpose account with the agenda of scrubbing the encyclopedia of a word he dislikes, but what, in your opinion, is the best course of action? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today to even think about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

An IP has just posted on WP:AN regarding this article - you seem to be involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

David, gangster and king

Hi, Doug. I know you're interested in the David article. Have you seen this new book by Joel Baden? It's interesting that a figure deemed unhistorical is treated as "the historical David" by a Yale professor. A quick skim indicates the historical record is the Bible. Wish I had time to read this book right now. Maybe you do? Regards, Yopienso (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see he addresses the historicity question on p. 12, and very logically. Yopienso (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A cruel world

I'm beating myself with hysop to make amends. Enjoy... Haploidavey (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

This person is edit warring on Satire - predictably, the problem is the word Islamophobia - I have tried to engage in discussion but (surprise surprise) s/he has nothing constructive to say. getting tired, but I don't want to give up... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If there's a pattern across a number of articles then ANI is the place to go. You of course aren't the only person to point this out. If it's bad enough, the usual remedy is a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Or an RfC/U of course. But both only after trying to work it out on talk pages. Of course, templating regulars is never a good idea, especially twice. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Point of Sangomar

By "C&P" I meant "copy and paste." Most of those Serer religion articles' additional reading sections list the same authors, or are just repetitions of things that already appear in the references, and frequently both. These articles are so jacked that there's no way they can be fixed without a total rewrite and access to all of the texts cited, but I don't think that an article that is only half about the Serer religion should have that bloat. Eladynnus (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Doh! of course. Yes, they are really bad. I've tried to work on them but at some point gave up. I don't trust the editor who created them of representing the sources correctly (in fact I and others were able to show he didn't) or of using reliable sources. They all reflect his beliefs and treat them as fact. Thanks very much for your work today. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was one of the guys who got a copy of that article that supposedly proved that the "raampa" were real. I visit these articles periodically just to marvel at them, although you can see that at Serer creation myth I've also done some pruning. That article is especially bad not just because of its quality but also because it implies that there is a single myth regarding creation a la the Genesis creation myth; it is in fact a collection of myths, some of which which have no obvious connection to one another except their common origin in Serer religion. It always tickled me how the author of these pages was so insistent that his culture and religion was totally separate from those of Eurasians, while the way these articles were written suggest that he was constantly comparing them. Eladynnus (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Would like your opinion

I noticed that User:Bless sins had changed the wording in the Seljuq dynasty article.[17] The original text read:

• "In 985, the Seljuq clan split off from the bulk of the Tokuz-Oghuz and set up camp on the west bank of the lower Syr Darya (Jaxartes), where they converted to Islam." (reference:Michael Adas, Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, Temple University Press, 2001, 99).
  

The changed text reads:

• "When Seljuq, the leader of the Seljuq clan, had a falling out with Yabghu, the supreme chieftain of the Oghuz, he split his clan off from the bulk of the Tokuz-Oghuz and set up camp on the west bank of the lower Syr Darya (Jaxartes). Around 985, Seljuq converted to Islam." (reference:Michael Adas, Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, Temple University Press, 2001, 99)
  

My concern is whether this change is plagiarism. This the what the Michael Adas source states;

• "Seljuk, an Oghuz warlord who had a falling out with the Yabghu, the Oghuz supreme chieftain, was among the early converts to Islam around 985."
  

What are your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty close, it could be paraphrased more (eg disagreement instead of falling out), but there aren't a lot of ways it could be worded. I'm not concerned unless there's more from the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Marathe Empire" vs. "Maratha kingdom"

There have been repeated attempts by this user to change the term "Maratha Empire" to "kingdom." I will assume this change is out of ignorance and not page-based sabotage. Therefore, I have provided you with an exhaustive list below of all primary sources that state Emperor Shivaji founded the "Maratha Empire" (not a "kingdom" as you so quaintly put it) in 1674 (note: these sources include both WASP "Westerners" and "Indians", so both perspectives deem the Maratha Empire an "empire" and not a "kingdom"):

Kincaid, D. (1937). The Grand Rebel: An Impression of Shivaji, Founder of the Maratha Empire. Collins. Talwalker, C. (1996). Shivaji's Army and Other “Natives” in Bombay. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 16(2), 114-122. Cooper, R. G. (2003). The anglo-maratha campaigns and the contest for india: the struggle for control of the south asian military economy. Cambridge University Press. Kincaid, C. A., & lavanta Pārasnīsa, D. B. (1986). Comprehensive History of the Maratha Empire. Anmol Publications. Nadkarnia, R. V. (1966). The Rise and Fall of the Maratha Empire. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Takakhav, N. S. (1921). Life of Shivaji Maharaj: Founder of the maratha empire. Ranade, M. G. (1900). Rise of the Maratha power (Vol. 1). Punalekar & Company. Sardesai, H. S. (2002). Shivaji, the great Maratha (Vol. 1). Genesis Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.181.166.191 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No repeated attempts here. This should be on the article talk page, and I found numerous sources saying Kingdom. This IP has been using various IP addresses for almost 2 years and several experienced editors reverted him yesterday. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong SPI report and discuss on the swami_nithyananda page

Sorry for the wrong SPI complaint. I did that because this page has been under constant attack by sock puppets. The case against him is more than 3 years old and has no progress because there is no substance. Enough evidence has been given in the court and some of the accusers themselves have been convicted of charges. Unfortunately the media doesn't report this. The way the section is written now looks like a charge sheet more than a wiki article and is an attempt to defame rather than report. In fact the courts and media bodies have warned media of abusive reporting in this case. So relying on media reports too much for negative information is not right.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Braminology

I just saw your edit, I think, that summary explains the point itself. It may just need a better explanation. Justicejayant (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution in Indian related articles, I think you should intervene in this topic Hinduism and other religions, a user Saddhiyama, who has knowingly a history of reverting my edits on different pages before(march 2012) seems to be offensively editing a page, about which he/she hasn't edited ever before. This article, where this issue has taken place, Saddhiyama seems to be engaged in a edit war, despite this user hasn't ever made a contribution to this article, apart from reverting back to the Fringed version, like recognized here.

The page contains highly WP:Fringe, Once I made changes into this page, a user "Blackguard_SF"(he has to do nothing with this page nor he discussed anywhere) reverted them, claiming "written like essay", after that, I started re-wording the article so my edits were reverted by Saddhiyama. When I asked for the explanation from Saddhiyama, I actually agreed with a few edits, but this user wants complete removal of all sourced materials that I added, by claiming like "you copied this from old history of wikipedia pages", "[18] is a dead link", and a lot of more childish explanations which has to do nothing with the sourced content or confirm that i coypasted the article. After I took this issue to DRN, this user failed to provide even a single valid argument, and kept telling the same fairy tales like "I forgot which article it was", "Don't know where u copy pasted from, but you copy pasted"...[19]

It seems more like, that the user is assuming Bad faith only for causing trouble. Because if these 2 users assume good faith, they would be thinking of making the page better instead of removing all reliably sourced materials and bringing back to Fringed and unsourced version. I want to make this page a lot better, but these with these 2, i can't. You should contribute here. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Based on this, I think you may be interested in this: [20] Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Alexikoua's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Header

I created a new subpage in your userspace and revised the links so they pertain to you instead of Elockid. Hope you don't mind. [21] You might want to create a new stats page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just catching up. Thanks, I'll self-trout. Not sure I know what you mean about creating a new stats page. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Afshar tribe article and AA2 violations

User:Urməvi and User:HistoryofIran have both been notified of AA2 editing restrictions and juding from the editwarring by the cooresponding IP, I would suspect that is User:Urməvi logged out.[22] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem edits?

It's a tricky one. The articles are technically OK, although some of the refs may be a bit iffy. I deleted the software article because I couldn't even see a claim for notability, another article has been sent to AFD by someone else. I can't see how Teenfav in its current form can be AFDed. It's got references, not overtly promo and I imagine the viewing figures make it notable. Interestingly, one of her edits was a comment about the promotional nature of a law firm article on its talk page, which led me to delete said article. One to watch, as you say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Engage me in discussion instead of cowardly threatening me with a ban.

As Wiki advises I began discussing this in the talk page. You have made no attempt to engage me in the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.61.142 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, But I didn't threaten you with a ban, and your made an attack on the editor who added the study of the Chinese skeleton calling him a pro-Chinese racist. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gupta Empire

Check the recent history. I think the problem with the paragraph is now fully resolved, but this shows how important it is to laboriously dig through the history instead of just reverting the most recent suspicious-looking edit: you have bad edit after bad edit. Especially India-related articles are a mess.

This is why I wish we would implement a simple but radical solution, such as protecting vulnerable articles from IP editing altogether. It's just too much work to vet all these edits, and so nothing gets done, such as actually working on the articles. Instead, they degrade further and further. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Babur and Ali-Shir Nava'i

• sigh* ... same problem again ... and again ... and again ... Now, he is even deleting the Encyclopaedia Iranica in the intro, replacing it with whatever unacademic source he needs ... --Lysozym (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask your advice?

Hi Dougweller, would you mind my asking your opinion? Is there anything I should be apologising or making amends for in relation to the exchanges here User_talk:Astynax#Inappropriate_remarks, here User_talk:Dkriegls#Inappropriate_remarks, and here Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements#Definiton_of_NRM.2C_or_lack_of_it? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)