User talk:Doug Weller

The current date and time is 11 August 2024 T 21:46 UTC.

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.

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.

Mahabharata Wiki Page Edits

Hello Doug, This is related to the Mahabharata Wiki page edits. You have reverted my changes citing academic sources need to be included since neither Sanskrit nor blog link I provided is sufficient. I would like to ask what qualifies as academic sources.

The information provided in that Wiki page right now is partisan/outdated. It needs to be corrected. However, going by Wiki policies, it cannot be done. I can provide a link to an article named "Interpolations in the Mahabharata" here https://archive.org/stream/InterpolationsInTheMahabharata/INTERPOLATIONS%20In%20The%20Mahabharata_djvu.txt

It is a paper by Indologist M.A. Mehendale and part of the journal "Annals of BORI" from Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and has discussed about this incident. You can see Draupadi's Swayamvar if you scroll down. Please clarify if this source is sufficiently academic.

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

Do you think anything was resolved on WP:RS/N about the use of biographic data obtained from ISFDB?

Thank you and Mike Christie for your participation on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data. Do you think that anything constructive was accomplished by the discussion on WP:RS/N?

Lacking a clear decision, I doubt that I can use that discusion as a reason for me to re-add a {{CN}} tag to the dubious DOB claim for the Edward M. Lerner article since the tag is only going to removed again. It is just my opinion that birth information on BLP articles should always be accompanied by a citation since some people may consider such information as private. The very fact that the author did not include his birth information on his personal website, not included in his books and not mentioned in his interviews (that I can find), indicates to me that the author may consider this piece of information as private and should not be included on Wikipedia without a clear reference to a reliable source. Thanks again. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd be justified in re-adding the tag, with an explanatory edit summary, but I think it would be better to put a note on the talk page, pinging the other editor, and give a link to the RSN discussion as justification for removing the date or adding a cn tag. That might lead to agreement, and if not you could ask for others to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The link is actually [1] (although funnily enough I see I took part in the discussion at archive 27, 10 years ago). User:Mike Christie I think the RSN discussion was sufficient to remove the date as we should always err on the side of caution for BLPs. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; yes, it's a BLP and that should be the default approach. A ping to the other editor is still a good idea, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is amazing that by accidentally leaving off a single digit from the link to Archive 273 lead to a similar discussion at Archive 27. What are the chances of that happening? But seriously, I thank both you and Mike for your wise advice since those Noticeboard discussions appear not as straightforward as the AfD discussions with their Keep and Delete or Support and Oppose votes on other boards. As per your advice, I will first post a discussion on the article's Talk page with my plans to remove the DOB information and the rational behind it to give the the other editor fair warning before I delete the the DOB per WP:BLP. Do you think that is sufficient to prevent possible edit warring problems in the future since the editor in question seems to spending 80% of his/her time editing that one article. Thanks to the both of you. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits Reverted

Hi there Doug,

I made some changes to writer and director, Dianne Houston's page yesterday. It seems that you have reverted the page back to its original form. I see that I forgot to provide my reasoning for the edits. My apologies. I am a student of African American film and television and the information on her page was very much outdated and some of it was outright wrong. I just wanted to update it to reflect her most recent work as well as correct some discrepancies. I also added two new sources to the bottom and removed one that provided false information. Let me know how I go about having the changes I made reflected on the page. Thanks for all you do.

Regarding a recent reversion of an edit I made to the Adam page

Hello,

You recently reverted an edit I made on the Adam page, your comment on it was: "Dummy edit: Any expansion of "first man" theory views in science sections should be treated as WP:UNDUE and reverted." I do not understand your reasoning, there is indeed a robust case to be made that is technically possible for humans to have a common ancestor, at least down to a very small group. Why is it not allowed on the page?

Best regards, WhisperWiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperWiker (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have been looking into it further and seems that there is a consensus view among population geneticists that it is indeed possible for all humans to have a common ancestor. I doubt that most of them think thats the case, but it does seem there is a consensus that it actually possible, even if unlikely. According to Wikipedia's rules my edit should be allowed. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperWiker (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Just because one fringe opinion declares that something might be possible, even if there is no actual evidence at all for it in fact happening, does not mean we have to give it the undue weight of including it in an article. Your only purpose here seems to be to insert this fringe speculation into an article. WHY? Heiro 00:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperWiker: the key bit of your source for me is " according to Swamidass, Adam and Eve could have been a special creation whose progeny slowly interbred with the human population that already existed outside the Garden of Eden — people who had descended through the normal evolutionary process." This is a fringe claim that so far as I know has no support from the geneticists who argue for a most recent common ancestor. See WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Catalogue of fossil hominids

Hello there. Considering your fields of expertise, could you possibly have a copy of Oakley, Campbell and Molleson's Catalogue of fossil hominids - 2: Europe? Khruner (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing pre-Holocene. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks anyway! Khruner (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles case

This is strictly an administrative question for the Signpost's Arbitration report this month. Should your statement at the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence be counted as evidence submitted to the case? Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: yes, but it doesn't make a lot of sense without the quote by me that I didn't repeat. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

pyramid power

Okay, so what are your reasons for denial of published Russian scientific research? Elspru (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnain

hello I'm new here and I don't know all the rules here but everything I added about Dhul Qarnain were direct tranlations from persian page of Dhul Qarnain: ذواقرنین and the references are exactly from Persian page. I know I didn't add summary but I don't Understand what went wrong that you deleted them. it took much of my time. sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminamin1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Doug Weller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory--not always derogatory

Doug, You really think the Skeptical Inquirer is on par with Oxford University Press? And that the former does not have an ax to grind on this issue? It is not that my reference is more nuanced, it is that its conclusion is more nuanced, and in fact conflicts with the Skeptical Inquirer's conclusion, which lacked any nuance. So, I removed the part of the sentence that was contradicted by the clearly much better reference. Please explain how the sentence is more defensible the way it is. Otherwise I will reinstate my edit. (By the way, this is not the only line of evidence that shows that the current version overstates the case.) Knuteson (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)