Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sweetpoet (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 21 July 2010 (→Sweetpoet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Notice 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.



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 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.

Anunnaki

My apologies. I deleted that prematurely without finding the proper sources to refute. NJMauthor (talk)

RE: "were blessed with" crusade

Would you mind taking a look at this, and the few edits preceeding it?

Layerbit deletion 7-6-2010

Hey Doug,

Thank you for the resources. I did read over the criteria and believe that you are correct. Many of the firms I was planning on writing about may not be eligible. I do still believe that there are some small boutique firms that do. I did more research on these guys and found a number of awards for design. Community for Entertainment Artists, Flash Forward, Flash Focus are a few. These may not be Emmys but they're pretty big in the design community.

What I was hoping to do was take the original article and just take out everything that sounds promotional or commercial.

Sorry to keep bothering you but thanks for your help Kevin Kevinclubman (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:Kevinclubman/Layerbit. I messed up the formatting slightly. Read MOS:LAYOUT and Wikipedia:Your first article. You've got loads of links now to our guidelines, etc on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Replied

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

Thanks

Thank you for the warning. For the time being, I will refrain from making further edits to pseudohistory. I would appreciate, however, not being labeled an SPA. I have edited hundreds of articles, including reverting obvious vandalism on scores of articles. It's absolutely true that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but my recent edits (pseudohistory excepted) have had more to do with restoring content that is being systematically deleted from Wikipedia - basically I am up against 2 editors who are moving from article to article removing any and all mentions of the Authorship question from the site. Is this to be condoned? Smatprt (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment about your being an SPA. The issue you're referring to is a dispute that should be settled without Admin action at least at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking that, and thanks to you and Dab for weighing in on the pseudohistory talk page. Will you be following through on the removal or should I? Regarding the issue of all these deletions (that continued today on 3 new articles), talk has proved fruitless - what should be my next step? Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

Thank you very much for responding to my request for help on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and adding the needed weight at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada#Quotation_marks_around_.22British_monarchy.22.3F. On my own, I really wasn't having much success getting them to respect the core content policies. Already the same editors are planning other ways to question or remove the content that doesn't fit their point of view, but I guess that'll be a bridge to cross when we get to it ... 65.92.158.145 (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug

Thanks for your assistance.AussieGreen&Gold (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rak-Tai

You did, in fact, miss the point. List of red-light districts includes historical areas, so removing entries on that basis is not valid. With the wikilink (this one) he could have fixed the link rather than removing material and a ref. I later fixed the wikilink. There are more questionable edits by this user, those were just examples. This editor has been and continues to be a problem; I'm doing my best to believe you're not targeting me and ignoring him because of some personal bias, but reporting him for his 3RR violations and continuing behavior is a necessary step in confirming that. I won't do that, because I prefer to try and work with other editors rather than going straight to admin action, but since you do then not doing the same for him is a double-standard. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not say it contains areas whioh are no longer red-light districts (and in my opinion should not contain such districts), so removing entries that are no longer red-light districts is clearly valid. You don't want to report him but you want me to, that's not going to happen. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quick glance a the list would have confirmed that it does in fact contain historical areas, clearly marked as such, including the ones he removed. Though I agree it could state that clearly in the lede; I'll work on it.
As I said I prefer to work with other editors and only request action as a last resort. I'm merely pointing out the double standard in reporting me and not him - you came to the page, saw a series of reverts by two editors, one of which was trying to engage the other in discussion and one that wasn't - and you chose to report one of them only, the one who was being constructive. If someone wasn't assuming good faith on your part, the conclusion would be that your actions were based on some personal bias related to the edits being made. Since I'm sure you are a fair and impartial editor, this must have just been an oversight on your part. I expect to see your report on Rak-Tai on the 3RR notice board shortly. As I said, I have no desire to do so personally, I just trying to help you avoid appearing to be biased. Best of luck, looking forward to seeing that report. TJ Black (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were repeatedly trying to add what others besides me consider a BLP violation, which is why I made the report, I know neither of you. In any case, there's no chance I am submitting a report for edits the last of which occurred over 24 hours ago, it's stale and no action would be taken. That's the way it works. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've realised that you may not be clear about our blocking policy. You appear to want me to use it to punish another editor. The purpose of blocking someone is to stop them from repeating an undesirable behaviour. You stopped, so you weren't blocked although you'd violated 3RR. That particular dispute is, hopefully, over now that there is a consensus (which you disagree with) that the image is a BLP violation. So again, no one would block Rak Tai, those edits are stale, the issue is resolved, and certainly as you weren't blocked he wouldn't be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out the double standard on your part. I acknowledged my mistake, you ought to acknowledge yours. Obviously I disagree with the view that one of Wikipedia's core polices is arbitrarily not applicable in certain cases, but that's irrelevant to your actions. TJ Black (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a mistake, it would however be a mistake if I did what you wished and what you could do yourself if you felt so strongly about it. My concern was in preventing a BLP violation, if that hadn't been the issue for me I would not have reported you. I don't know what core policy you are referring to. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just checked, Rak-Tai did not violate 3RR. Even if he'd been warned, you only report for exceeding 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Antigrandiose

Related to your post on my talk page - see User talk:Antigrandiose#Inappropriate content and associated MFD. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Theodore Kavalliotis

could you please unprotect the article? i want to readd content that was removed. in NO WAY were my edits vandalism...i insulted user sulmues because of his inability to understand a simple matter so he reported me for 'personal attacks' and users with no idea regarding the article kept removing good content because i was a 'vandal'...if you feel unwilling to unprotect (fair) could you ask admin future perfect at sunrise to take a look at it since he knows both my edit history AND the article well? i dont have an account so i cant ask him myself...thanks87.202.23.90 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my bad...i just saw future perfects comment towards you in this case sorry i missed it earlier so you can scratch most of my above comment...just to add one more thing so i can make my case i WASNT block-evading i just have a dynamic IP so if i disconnect it changes...at the time it changed i WASNT aware of sulmues report and i kept editing normally. so ill have to only request of you: can you unblock the article so i can edit it?87.202.23.90 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second the IP editor here. He is actually a valuable contributor and his edits were in no way vandalism. Sulmues has a real nasty habit of labeling any edits he doesn't like as "vandalism", for which he has been repeatedly warned and sanctioned in the past. For the record, I am having the same kind of problem with Sulmues on Talk:Greater Albania. He simply cannot or will not understand anything I say, resulting in immense frustration on my part. Athenean (talk)

yeah that doesnt bother me too much ill just try to avoid the user as much as possible since badfaith and complete lack of understanding characterize him...my only real concern is the article i just have a couple of sentences to add87.202.23.90 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against Sulmues don't resolve your content dispute.
And I don't see any indication that the problems which led to my protecting the article have been resolved yet. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller

This is a legitimate conspiracy theory I have been investigating recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.251 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now all you have to do is get it published in a reputable journal. See WP:RS and WP:OR. But if you post it again before that, I'll block you. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Northolt BEA Viking accident

I've re-written (from scratch) this article here so that it hopefully isn't a copyvio anymore - can you have a look and confirm that it is OK?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheists

I'll check out that discussion. The maintainers of the list ought to have been notified of the discussion prior to the move. There are some people on the list who would identify themselves as nontheists. I'm not sure there is a BLP issue with identifying the others as nontheists, given the verifiable and uncontroversial definition of the word, and the other sources that confirm that they have views consistent with that definition. The problem with atheist as an identifier is that it has a dysphemistic sense that nontheist does not have--hence the nonbelievers in God who object to being called atheists. Also, the matter of whether or not one must assert the nonexistence of deities to truly be an atheist comes down to one's point of view as to how the word should be applied (dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy identify divergent usages, without settling which is the "correct" one). This also accounts for those nonbelievers who assert that they are not atheists (Carl Sagan being a notable example).

If consensus shifts such that one must specifically identify by a term (whether nontheist or atheist) to be so identified here, then a significant purge of the list will be in order, because many of those listed currently have not gone on record as to the label they prefer. Nick Graves (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpoet

Hi Doug. In response to my proposal to merge Separated brethren into Unitatis Redintegratio, Sweetpoet again devolved into personal attacks similar to, though nowhere near as egregious as, those discussed here on the incident NB. Here is the latest diff (note that he says I am "unstable", "change (my) mind on a whim, and can't be trusted"). Sweetpoet also unreverted his diatribes against me and others on his talk page. Do you have any guidance on how to procede? Thanks! Novaseminary (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi Doug...
since Novaseminary decided to bring this matter to you (not my choice at all), and it's about me basically, I have no choice but to respond somehow. (Please remember, NOVA brought this to you.....and made this even a matter and issue to begin with.....something that was supposedly settled like 2 months ago)
I am NOT that into WP anymore, for real... I only edited a couple of articles the past few days. Nothing major. And I have NOT even bothered with the disputed article at ALL.


anyway, instead of seeing "diff" it might be better to see the full thing I wrote to Novaseminary's proposal....(and yes I feel it's uptight and unwarranted and not in keeping with his word per the lengthy discussions on it)
Please check this out carefully.....thanks
I wrote this:


provoking things again huh?
And bringing this matter up again for uptight personal reasons, when it was already a settled matter a while back.....even where you came to agree. Now you do this.
Of course that's no surprise at all, as other editors have come to know how you are....
Anyway...I already proved fairly well why it should be its own article, (more than once this matter has been discussed, but since you're unstable and you change your mind on a whim, and can't be trusted, this matter is brought up again by you....)
seriously this matter has been DISCUSSED AND SETTLED ALREADY. Do you care about "stand-alone" topics that are sourced by themselves, and true WP policy on the matter? Obviously not....cuz this nonsense is a running issue with you.


and I cited VERBATIM where you're wrong. Do I have to paste it here again? It's a stand-alone subject, and it is referenced by itself, and and and WIKIPEDIA POLICY SAID THAT THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD NOT BE MERGED OR DELETED. I love how you respect that. Then you wonder why I have SEVERE problems with you, Nova....and why I wish you would just go away (at least from this article). You never change, and you can't be trusted. And you have serious issues. And find fault with almost everything. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND SETTLED.......A LONG TIME AGO NOW... yet for some reason you neurotically cannot let this go.


and again, to re-iterate to you check this down below again:


Merging should NOT be considered if 

  1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
  3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

as for number 3, there's NO QUESTION that that applies to the "Separated brethren" article. It's a subject that ALONE is sourced and referenced and of interest and importance. There is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone.

So, as I said, to answer your question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.(As you yourself admitted.) Sweetpoet (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and that was it.....you can go to the page and see the stuff there for yourself. thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=374761951"