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 75.82.13.51 (talk) at 12:03, 24 October 2010 (→‎Wikipedia:Edit warring). 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.

Wholesale deletion of data, without thinking

Thanks for deleting everything !

I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. The former had one reference to Ellis, the latter none.

And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had you even heard of the Deva fortress before now? No, I thought not. So Wiki readers are denied any knowledge of the Market Hall inscription and Elliptical Building, and because of what? Because of Dougweller's encyclopaedic knowledge? The update had little or nothing to do with that Ellis book at all - it all came from Chester Archaeology. Did you even bother to read the update?

Ditto the other pages I added to. Had you even heard of the Elagabal of Elagabalus before today?? I doubt it.

I have written to the archaeologists at Chester to complain about your actions (I live there). They may well be too busy to improve the site, and so it is often up to those with and interest in the locale to assist. It is not your job to demolish every improvement that is made to the Chester sites.

I shall also be making a formal complaint to site administrators at Wiki.

Narwhal2 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error. I've restored it, except of course the COI bit. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turned out this was one of several sock puppets of a fringe writer, Ralph Ellis, all now blocked by another editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of ancient Israel and Judah

Doug, I'm increasingly frustrated trying to explain things to JJB - he doesn't know much about Bronze/Iron Age history and archaeology and seems unable to grasp common concepts. Is there some panel of editors who do know this subject area and might be willing to help? (I'm asking John Croft independently since he posted in the Talk page recently). PiCo (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to this when I can. The RfC should have attracted people, there's a content noticeboard but I don't think it would attract specialists, and a history Wikiproject. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC doesn't seem to have attracted anyone. Is it legitimate to approach people I know, like John Croft? I'm not trying to gather a gang, just a group of editors with interest in and knowledge of this subject. PiCo (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Unless you think it's a fringe issue, but I don't think that's clear. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
== Release Article ==

I recently came across a claim that once an article was over two years old it was difficult to remove or merge; I don't know whether this is true so I thought I'd ask your advice. The "Release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi" article appears to have lost its objectivity (if it had any) and displays serious bias, which seems to be directed against the Scottish justice minister. Ostensibly an article about a Scottish prisoner release, it fails to mention the release but focuses on American reactions. It glosses over media misrepresentation of the background.

It supplies a completely imbalanced oversupply of quotes, showing the split Scottish reaction; it includes 5 quotes against and 2 in favour.

It offers 8 negative quotes from the US "balanced" by 2 neutral ones plus 7 negative government ones and 4 negative newspaper ones. Like the UK quotes, this could have been summed up succinctly but instead appears to act a as a thesaurus of disapproving vocabulary.

From the released convicts homeland, there are 2 positive quotes and 1 unsourced negative. Mention -but not quotes! - are made of 2 positive foreign responses from countries of other victims (South Africa's Mandela and Germany's Merkel).

The public of the three most involved countries are evenly mixed but the (English-speaking) media reporting dominates the results and is negatively skewed to generate readership and sales, destroying all balance. You might well wonder how many of the US sources were harassed by the media to supply soundbites (more than one statement has started with "the first I knew about it was when the reporter rang to let me know..!) giving an impression of what in Britain might be described as Silly Season column-padding - meaning newspaper staff trying to generate heat and controversy during a quiet period.

This article needs serious attention if not radical changes and if you and others were planning a merger with the main article I'd fully support it.

That's before we look at the bizarre foreign comments on the Jim Swire article! Zagubov (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also take it to the WP:NPOV noticeboard, which might be a better idea as a merge would just bring the problems along with it, and I'm not sure yet about a merge. I'll take the Jim Swire article to WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy

Those sources do mention mummies, but more like in the context of dead bodies that didn't decay. Almost all of the sources cited for those 2 sentences are questionable or even hearsaying. None of them are backed up by science. I am going to remove them. Good call for catching spam in foreign language. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The editor is clearly interested in mummies, eg [1] where again I am suspicious of his sources. But worst of all is an article he created, Buddhist mummies - if you ever have time, could you have a look at it and see if there is something that should be done about it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this topic, but I randomly clicked on a few references and they can't be accessed (e.g. #3, 44, 60, 64), is a blog (#8, 12, 29, 36, 55, 57, 58, 84, 89) or is a forum thread (#48, 50). And mind you, I was only looking at the url without actually opening all the websites. The only reputable source is #9, which is a scholarly journal article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have a problem both with the article and the editor. First question, is the subject notable? If it is, then we need to turn it into a proper article. If we have problems with the editor, then we can deal with that. Maybe we can find a reliable Buddhist editor to help. This editor uses forums a lot, something I noticed in the past (Google translate is good enough to show that). Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable subject for sure, just look at how many interwikis it got already. The "causes" section looks alright to me, we need to cleanup (or significantly shorten) the list of people of monks which are mummies. I think the user is merely collecting whichever he/she found on the internet and paste it here without considering the source's crediability. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can find more reliable sources. Or you can confirm with local Buddhist societies or monastery. Some mummies you deleted are very notable. Nature following and the Tao (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't confirm with anyone, you need to follow our basic policies, in this case WP:VERIFY. If they are notable you should have no problem finding reliable sources. Blogs and forums are not acceptable as reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to proceed?

Hello. If you remember, I was involved in an ArbCom case aopened by IZAK (talk · contribs) against Chabad-related editors. This editor has continued picking on edits made by me and other editors from that case, and today he has made two reverts of edits of mine that raise my suspicions about stalking, making edits just for the sake of reverting me, and going against consensus.

I'd like to ask you, what is the correct way to reopen the ArbCom case, this time in the direction of banning IZAK from Judaism-related articles. Can the case be reopened, and if so, how, or should I open a new case?

Thanks for your reply. I'll be watching this page. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is go through the normally available procedures of conflict resolution at WP:DR (or go to ANI) before openings a new case. You can't reopen the old one (there are other things that can be done about old cases, but in this instance they aren't appropriate). Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougweller: Debresser asked me to take a look here, and unfortunately, he is once again personalizing routine editing. He seems to feel that he "embodies" the Chabad movement on WP and any time he's questioned he feels that it's an "attack" against Chabad. I recently reverted two of his arbitrary changes that he had made without serious discussion on talk pages, and now he feels that is somehow a "reason" for his outrageous demands. His editorial attitude and language towards me is constantly abominable as he simply violates WP:NPA and WP:E any time he sees my name or that of anyone he wishes to demolish, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs such as his "...violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill", [2], [3], inserts "FBI", [4], "Food for psychiatrists", [5], "insane ranting", [6], [7]" (until January 2010), see this at User talk:Debresser#AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism his response is "Go fuck your righteous self" and the way he sputters again when I caution him at User talk:Debresser#Your threats are not the way to go on WP. Instead of engaging in the correct dialogue and give and take on talk pages he resorts to insults and asks to "ban" me as if he were the WP:OWNER of Jewish topics on WP. I have had a long and successful career of over 7 years on WP and have been able to resolve discussions, but with Debresser it always comes down to insults and over-reactions. He has no case and he will have to shape up himself before he preaches against others. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Just a note

Your name was mentioned in an open SPI. The primary issue has been resolved. I didn't know whether you'd care to comment briefly on the secondary issues. Specifically, you were mentioned as deleting OR by this user on a talk page, and originality comes up again here toward the end of the post. This is simply to alert you that I named you in connection to this issue. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunninghamhead Estate

Hello. I wonder if you can help with an editing wars problem here. I have no idea how to deal with this issue. Essentially I wrote an article about the place some years back and now the owner of 'The Stables' is trying to sell up whilst a neighbour is writing personal comments about the person and his stables. I updated and improved the factual aspects of the aerticle and removed the personal comments - now editing wars. Any help appreciated. Thanks. Rosser Gruffydd 07:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You're right. I will refrain from expressing frustration, no matter how justified :) Hxseek (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know how hard it can be. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert vs. Orijentolog (& 300,000 collaterals)

Hey Doug, as you noticed I wrote to Georgewilliamherbert last time when he blocked me, and he didn't answer to me so I reposted my message with full explanation again (including your answer) but he ignored me again. I don't understand why does he accuse me for "very persistent abusive edits" since there was no any for more then six months and since I've explained him issue four times, but the main problem is that he wittingly blocked whole my network for one month so it hurts 300,000 people. Some people from Croatia already complained about it. What should I do now?

Inform you when I see some huge mistake?
Use only discussion pages?
Report whole case to Arbitration Committee?

It would be good to convince him my intentions aren't to vandalize Wikipedia (I'm not talking about me, but because of whole network). By the way, more then one year passed since I was blocked, so is it right time to write appeal for re-blocking? --93.142.156.57 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)[reply]

You said you'd inform me, but then you went ahead later and edited without informing me. You can appeal to the Appeals Subcommittee via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org - I'm not around that much for the next week, real life commitments. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doug meant to write arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you get when you copy and paste from Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Odd. And thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

What are your thoughts on this. From what I can remember on the subject of genetics and race, modern geneticists and others, including anthropologists, discount race as have a genetic determinitive. Basically the same edit was made the other day, and this was the second insertion of this. The editor left a message at my talk here. I've reverted] for now, but was wondering if you'd mind weighing in. Heiro 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the source says. The author is S.O.Y. Keita who is a biological anthropologist, and his specialty, evolutionary biology, is not a social science. The concept of 'clines' which is used by geneticists is not race. But it is contested by some geneticists, who do talk about race. I'm on the move today so won't be online for many hours soon. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Lewontin's Fallacy before making such claims. Modern geneticists are split on the subject, so perhaps we replace "most" with "many" as a compromise and avoid a long argument? Ronk01 talk 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Help required

Hi Dougweller. I require assisstance/ feedback in regard to issues on the Scythians article- which you were briefly involved with. Basically, an editor, HonestopL is making POV edits, blindly reverting, and falsifying sources just to so to the opening sentnce in the 'Origins' section read that Scythians came from 'Greater Iran'. Despite the fact that I have numerous times repeated that such a term is vague, and has political connotation, he had disregarded this. Moreover, the actual sources never mention anything about Greater Iran- as I have pointed out in the discussion page. The various sources suggest variuos origins, including the Volga - Ural region, southern Siberia, northern Siberia. All these regions fall outside what is considered Greater Iran.

What's more, user Ian.Thomson appears to have a personal vandetta against me under the cloak that he is upholding WP: AFG and WP:CIVIL. But his carry on [8] plainy exposes his hypocrisy. he has taken it upon bimself to support HonestopL by randomly googling things about Scythians - and showing to me that they were indeed Iranian. they both appear unable to grasp that speaking an Iranic language doesn;t mean that a people come from the geographic region of Iran, greater or not. The Scythians were various groups sharing a similar, nomadic culture from the Eurasian steppe, well north of Iran, with a way of life which was foreign to the type of civilizations in the Iran/ Afghan region, such as the Achemenids and their successors. It's like hitting one's head against a brick wall with these two. i'd really appreciate your advice against what I think is unfair behaviour on their part. Hxseek (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content/ethnic issue made worse by lack of patience. We have the content RfC process, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, the RS and NPOV boards, etc - ONE (only one at a time) would be a better idea than breaking 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Please be aware that I consider your actions (reactions) on the Cyrus Cylinder and Jona Lendering page to be a form of edit warring.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned from editing. In particular, the three-revert rule prohibits any editor from performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (note that this does not necessarily mean exact reverts, and that there are certain exemptions, like reverting vandalism—for details see below). Breaking this rule is sufficient—but not necessary—to warrant a block for edit warring. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your edits to be a BLP violation (which is the bit of 3RR you didn't mention). I made it clear that I'd brought the issue up at WP:BLPN. Reverting potential BLP violations is not edit warring and I only reverted twice. Rather than keep re-adding it you should have engaged in discussion at BLPN. You were reverted by 2 editors, I mentioned BLP violation, all of this should have been a clue not to revert a 3rd time. BLP violations are taken very seriously by most Wikipedia editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, DougWeller, I really don't think that you are up to par as an editor as you seem to be unaware of the discussion on Lendering's page. I did engage in discussion. Pay attention and stop being a lazy editor. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed... ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=392583106"