User talk:Doug Weller

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.

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seasons Greetings

SH is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

In regards to "Kevin Strom's continuation of NA"

This information is false and misleading. Strom is illegally using copyrighted names an logos of the National Alliance. See: http://www.narrg.com/2013/12/response-to-illegal-attempt-at-appropriating-national-alliance-assets/

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre

I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. 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, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

possible conflict of interest

Hello Doug, I stumbled across a rather curious situation and I thought you might like to know about it.

There is an author named Mike Campbell who is in the business of selling a book about Amelia Earhart. [[1]] On his blog he claimed that a man he called “DC Dave” informed him that a reference to his book had been inserted into the article on Amelia Earhart. [[2]] The reference was inserted into Amelia Earhart by User:RoosterEnroughty. [[3]] “DC Dave” runs a website through which he expresses his various conspiracy theories. [[4]] A comparison between User:RoosterEnroughty’s [history] and “DC Dave’s” website reveals some alarming commonalities.

“DC Dave” has an obsession with James Forrestal. [[5]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Forrestal. [[6]]

“DC Dave” writes about Vincent Foster. [[7]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Foster. [[8]]

“DC Dave” writes about the DC madam. [[9]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits her page. [[10]]

“DC Dave” writes about Andy Rooney. [[11]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Rooney. [[12]] And the source he inserted was written by none other than “DC Dave”.

Now it’s difficult to be sure that User:RoosterEnroughty actually is “DC Dave”. He could, after all, simply be a “DC Dave” enthusiast. Nevertheless, the situation is all kinds of suspicious and stinks of several different brands of impropriety. Furthermore, if Mike Campbell is in cahoots with “DC Dave”, and “DC Dave” (as User:RoosterEnroughty) is promoting Campbell’s book through Wikipedia then we have a WP:COI to contend with.

I’ve never seen a situation like this before, so I figured you would be a good person to ask.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up on the new chronology. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to out an editor - the DCDave website is a personal website and I think fails WP:EL and should be removed from [13]. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And what of the funny business with Earhart? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was able to remove 19 of the links from [14]. The remainder are on talk pages or are being used as references so I don’t think I can use WP:ELNO as a justification for removing them. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wouldn't touch talk page links unless they were illegal or added by banned/blocked editor after the block/ban, but the others I'll look at, including the Earhart one. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam

I'll be honest, I was sort of using a machete approach to editing there - figured if I inadvertently cut out a decent source poorly used someone would restore it and then we could chat about it at talk. :) Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed your recent edit and wanted to ask you to look at a BLP issue where I may be wrong. I've reverted 3 times and seem to be the only person who believes reporting a persons death requires a reference. The fact that so many seemingly different people are adding this information gives me pause, but I remain uneasy because I can not find a source myself. Please look at the matter if you have the time. The article is Paco de Lucía. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actully, I see that a source has now been provided. Thanks—John Cline (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, glad it's sorted. These can be tricky. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

.

You said you were into Dog agility. You might be a better person to judge this trainer, because it is true, I don't know much about agility and dog contest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Ho. For the moment it looks like some socks are also involved in voting like with 5 votes and it is kind of embarasing, and sockpuppet investigation is ongoing, but I don't want to be unfair. Can't really check notability, tried but got nothing. But it is possibly a narrow subject. Hafspajen (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tami Blumenfield

Hey, Doug. I'm answering here instead of at RSN because over there they generally seem to want questions of the form "is source X reliable for statement Y" rather than general discussions of source reliability (which is no rebuke of your post there, I'm indifferent to that kind of thing). Tami Blumenfield has become, since writing that document, an internationally recognized expert on the Na, editor of this:

• Blumenfield, Tami; Silverman, Helaine (14 May 2013). Cultural Heritage Politics in China. Springer. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-4614-6874-5.

and author of fairly well-cited papers (given how new they are) on the subject. She's also mentioned in pretty many acknowledgement sections by other authors. In your questioned document she says "Recognizing that publication of my book may be a distant event, I have compiled a short fact sheet that may help separate fact from fiction in the Na case." Whatever book she's talking about will certainly be a reliable source when it's published, and it's plausible that it'll be based on her dissertation, published the year after she wrote the fact sheet:

• Blumenfield, Tami. Scenes from Yonglin: Media Creation in China‘s Na Villages. Diss. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington, 2010.

That makes me think the stuff on her fact sheet is probably mostly in her dissertation, although I can't check quickly because it doesn't seem to be available online. I think this would make it reliable for pretty much any statement of fact as it would be the author's own summary of what's unquestionably a reliable source. If you think it'd be helpful and you don't otherwise have access to it I can almost certainly get a copy of the dissertation for you in a few days. I don't know if this will help you at all, but it's no trouble for me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok alf laylah wa laylah, I'll accept that, thanks. It does make sense. I understand why the x reliable for Y thing is important, but there are also times when its a legitimate question to ask if X is reliable for anything at all, as so many sources simply aren't. I appreciate your responding here. Thanks for your comments at Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza - do you know anyone else who might be interested in this? We have a real problem in certain areas of Wikipedia with the lack of experienced or interested editors (and Admins). Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly ask Nishidani and Zero0000 about Banu Qurayza. I don't know if they're interested in working on less modern historical topics, but they're the editors working on Middle East articles whose work I respect the most around here. They might also have suggestions for other editors to ask as well. The more I look at that, the more I think the material ought to be in one place, since the two accounts have diverged to a disconcerting degree. I don't feel up to sorting through it enough to form a defensible opinion right now, though, but will certainly weigh in on proposals, should there be any.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great idea. Nishidani has already weighed in. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy Page yet again

Everyone agreed the Dreyfus source was the best Shugden reference. Both Chris Flynn and kt66 mention that Dreyfus should be a priority reference. But again that Shugden cultist, Truthsayer62, deleted all the direct quotes, and called them "inaccurate". TiredofShugden (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone" is agreeing that only one source is accurate? You may say that Dorje Shugden History is not a reliable source but the present introduction to the article does not represent a balanced view or the truth; it is only since the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's rejection of the practice that Dorje Shugden has been regarded as a Gyalpo. There is a view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, and that was the majority view amongst Sakyas and Gelugpas before 'history' was changed by Dreyfus. Wikipedia should be accurate and at the moment the article does not represent truth - the previous version was more accurate because it said that there is some disagreement in terms of how Dorje Shugden is viewed. The present version is black and white and gives only one side. Also, I object to being called a "cultist". Dear Dougweller, can't you see that when someone called "tiredofshugden" who is calling me a cultist entreats you to take action against me, it is certainly not neutral and not in the best interest of the article? Best wishes Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, ,y warning has nothing to do with TiredofShugden's post above, which I've only just seen. It has everything to do with the clear consensus at WP:RSN concerning your source. Alternative sources that would help improve the introduction have been suggested, but you've ignored them and replaced the unreliable source. If you really want to make the introduction better, why have you not used them? Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I was not aware of the consensus or party to it. I am investigating alternative sources and will use them to change the article accordingly, thanks for your time and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Please do use some of the sources provided. I agree that someone called TiredofShugden is probably not the best person to call someone else names, but I'm trying to pay attention to the real issues, not personal ones, and to be honest, we tend to be wary of people with names such as Truthsayer62. I used to think such names were ok - before my Wikipedia times, then realised that 'truth' is often elusive and sometimes for some subjects often hard to determine. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 is claiming Dreyfus changed history, even though Jeff Watts, who is an expert in Tibetan art, showed there was NO Shugden art before the late 1800's. I think we should reinsert that sentence into the lead Dougweller. P.S. Is it okay to register with a new name?TiredofShugden (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just open a new account, and on the user page say that you formerly edited as TiredofShugden putting that as a link. Minor point, it's Jeff Watt, not Watts, but you probably know that. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header. 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) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Revdel requests

Hi, could you revdel these [15][16]. vzaak 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian turanism

Dear Sir,

It would be great if you would tell me in detail, why you had reverted my last edit to the article in Hungarian Turanism.

The original article has been and is very like a few pages from a kommunist book of propaganda, full of skewed and distorted, unscientific trash.

Its main sources are short articles, published in weekly political magazines. The Budapest Times and Heti Válasz are not the best points of references in scientific matters, so to speak.

This is from an interview with Igaz Levente, published in Heti Válasz politikal weeky:

"A csizmám meg ugyan jellegzetes, felkapó orrú, keleti stílusú lábbeli, ám nem titok, hogy modern cipészműhelyben, így szerszámokkal készült, ráadásul egy jó nevű veszkócsizma-készítő alkotta. De az illető képes volt az elé tett keleti szabásmintából tartós, mi több, kényelmes, gyaloglásra és lovaglásra egyaránt alkalmas, vízhatlan holmit készíteni, ami bizony az esetek többségében nem mondható el a „hagyományőrző boltokban”, például a Nazcánál kapható, kétes formavilágú portékáról. Az vegytiszta szittya biznisz.

Vagyis létezik a szittya biznisz?

Igen, kétség kívül, mint a „túloldali”, tehát hivatalossá sosem váló hagyományőrzésre, történészkedésre épült iparág, amelyet manapság sok ezer embert lát el autentikusnak, vagy korhűnek mondott árucikkekkel – a ruházat elemeitől egészen a fegyverekig, utóbbira a különböző keleti népekről elnevezett üvegszálas íjak a legjobb példa."

And the English translation of it:

"And my boots are characteristically Oriental style footwear, with whip up noses, but it is no secret, that it was made in a modern workshop, with tools, and top of it all, it was made by a reputable wester/cowboy boot maker. But the person was able to make from the Oriental patterns put in front of him a durable, even comfortable, waterproof thing, wich is suited for walking and horse riding, and this is certainly in most cases can not be said for the ambiguously styled goods sold in "traditional stores", such as "Nazca". That is pure Scythian business.

So, there is a Scythian business?

Yes, without doubt, as an industry built to the "opposing", so officially never recognised, traditionalism, historicism, which supplies thousands of people with goods said to be authentic, or faithful to the period - from parts of clothing to weapons, the latter is best exemplified by fiberglass bows, named after Oriental peoples."

This is a personal opinion of Igaz Levente, and not a scientific fact.

My edits were objective, factual and referenced. My sources and references are reliable, like The Chatolic Lexicon,the Electronic Library of The Hungarian National Library, "Valóság", the journal of Hungarian Lyceum, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the works of Vámbéry, and Max Müller.

I know Hungarian History well. I believe in free speech, in the freedom of science, and I hate any kind of censorship.

Your editorial work in this case was/is nothing else, just plain censorship.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maghasito (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito, We should not call this hypothesis/concept a "scientific notion" - in common English the term is restricted to the hard sciences such as physics. Subjects such as linguistics, ethnography, history, archeology, and Orientalism are considered social sciences in the English speaking world. We attribute material to show it is their opinion, but we do not say "personal opinion". If you want to say that the root of Turanism are considered by some (ie in your terminology is their personal opinion) to be in the Gestas, find academic sources and attribute them. I'm sure that you could improve the article if you followed our guidelines. Do it bit by bit. Turanism is not scientific but a political/historical viewpoint, so we can use both academic and media sources. We don't have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, we have guidelines and policies which you need to follow. The article doesn't follow them entirely but some of your changes didn't help. Others am restoring at least in part. I did mention some issues in my edit summary. If you want to use Farkas Ildikó as a source, do, but attribute the text to him. If you want to say "This tradition served as starting point for the scientific research of the ethnogenesis of Hungarian people. Kőrösi Csoma Sándor" fine, but you need a source that says that. I'll copy this to the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Alleged Inappropriate use of Template:Refimprove

As you pointed, the template info says: "This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article.". That adjust totally to the previous situation of the article, wich had many sources, of course, but still lacks some, in other words, are insufficient. Im glad that you or other user could find rapidly sources for that citations needed, because as far as I know the refimprove tag is used for that, to make editors aware of that lack of sources in an article and motivate them to search for them and fix the article, so the tag could be removed. So, I cant understand why you felt annoyed for that, and I found very disturbing your advice of ignoring the citation needed tags, moreover coming from an administrator. Hope that it was only a misunderstanding.--HCPUNXKID 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I don't know about Dougweller, but I found it annoying because the sources were so very easy to find. The time it took you to edit-war the template back in and to write the above note was undoubtedly more than the time it took me to find the sources. Why not just look for sources if their absence bothers you so very much?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, HCPUNXKID is completely wrong that the template applies to an article with that many references. Virtually all but maybe some FA articles lack 'some' references. It's meant for articles that are so unreferenced that a few citation tags wouldn't be sufficient. And yes, there are times when I ignore citation need tags - for instance, when they are relatively recent, or when they are for things that can easily be sourced. I don't have time to fix every citation needed tag on every article I edit or revert vandalism on. Once again, what was annoying was that User:HCPUNXKID decided to tag the whole article incorrectly rather than fix the problem if he felt so worried about it. That's what a good editor should do. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As you dont have time to fix every citation needed tag on every article you edit, I dont have time to search for sources in every article I review. And sorry, but stop saying that I did wrong by adding the refimprove tag, because thats not true according to the template info, wich dont says anywhere that a determinate number of sources given is enough to not add the template, thats your personal interpretation and POV. If the article lacks inline citations (as there was the ADL articles case) the tag could be added, as I did. Then you found and added the sources required, and the tag was removed (as that was the purpose of its adding, move editors to found and add the required citations), so I dont know where is the problem. It seems to me that you felt the tag add as an attack on the article, something I cant understand.--HCPUNXKID 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Bgwhite

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bgwhite. 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) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Shady.2FCoat-rack_articles_.28of_dubious_merit.29_that_i_intend_to_nominate_for_deletion.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.