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 Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 09:56, 9 September 2013 (→New Article: we already have one.). 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 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.

Question on your reverting my edits

First of all, Thank you for taking time to put your thoughts (for reverting) on my page on Lingam article. But the source you mentioned 'Encyclopædia Britannica' (origin-UK) may not know the Hindu roots, heritage and culture and why we pray Shiva lingam. Their interpretation of Lingam is against our Hindu religion beliefs. Kindly reconsider my deletes, if you think, they should be on the page, atleast move them to the bottom of the page under beliefs/myths and not at the beginning of the article.

Thanks for your time.

Europa Universalis government types applied in real world

Hi Doug (or Substitute Doug),

Something extraordinary is happening to Wikipedia! I have noticed that over the past week or two, government categories from the Europa Universalis III/IV strategy games have started being used for real world articles in Wikipedia.

Articles defining the terms, such as Noble republic, Merchant republic, Administrative republic, Despotic monarchy etc. have been expanded or created (with, it must be acknowledged, relevant references showing that they have, at least to a limited extent, already been used in real world contexts), and these categories are beginning to appear in infoboxes (e.g. Corsican Republic has been changed from Constitutional Republic to Administrative Republic; the Republic of Venice from Oligarchic Republic to Merchant Republic).

While the new designations tend to be quite appropriate, I am concerned that Europa Universalis, well-thought-out though it is, is not what most people would consider a Reliable Source- and is indeed not being credited as the source anyway.

Even more intriguing, the person who seems to have started this, User:Turgeis (named after a character in the Myth II game) ceased activity and blanked his user page at 22:54 on 26 August. At 23:01, User:Ceiscoran (also named after a character in Myth II) appeared and is continuing the work at a rapid pace.

I have no idea what the procedure is for reviewing and responding to such an ambitious and audacious effort.

David Trochos (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must get to bed, but... not SPI at the moment as no overlapping edits, although they seem to be the same person. I'm concerned about [1] which is copyvio from [2]. [3] looks like copyvio also, see [4]. I'd warn both accounts - ah, Turgeis was warned and continued copyvio (the link above), so I think an SPI is in order to link the two. Ceiscoran needs a warning - can you raise the SPI (not really hard, similar user pages (show Turgeis's old one), similar edits, times, and copyvio from both) and warn Ceiscoran? And maybe post this to User talk:Moonriddengirl? Bad sources need to go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woo- that got quite dramatic. I posted my message just before bedtime and got back this evening to see your response and, well, everything else. I'll try taking a netbook to work and doing some reverts tomorrow- please let me know if there's an allocation system in place. David Trochos (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with most of the copyvio, feel free to revert anything else you want, no system in place. Thanks very much for the tip, although I think I hate you for putting me through hours of looking for copyvio. :-) Nice to get all the socks. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I 'm working through the Ceiscoran edits in chronological order David Trochos (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cynic in me speculates that their requests for copy-edits by the GOCE were done in the hope of masking copyvios by getting someone else to paraphrase some of their copy-paste.—Odysseus1479 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possible explanation, certainly I was unable to think of one and it puzzled me. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the file of the human displacement map of the world not reliable?

Hi, i've noticed that you've said that the file of the human displacement map of the world isn't reliable, however, you might have decided that based only on tobus claims without having considered my point of view in this discussion: the image is reliable because it is done by an stablished expert on the field: Jonatahan Hagos, you can verify it here on the website if the Oxford Brookes University: [5]

  • Research Interest and consultancy expertise:
My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.

I gave a look to the section that tobus made in the reliable sources noticeboard and i found out that he uses a reasoning similar to the one he used in the talk page before: That it can't be valid because the site allows to mention both things "consultancy expertise and research interest" so it can be only one because the site doesn't specify on a implicit way which is which, however, that's false, because at the beginning of the quote the phrase "My work and research" is used, leaving clear that it's both, the only thing he does in that part of his post is to make assumptions based only on the bio found on his site, however the sections don't match at all, they aren't identical. what tobus does is to put in doubt the credibility of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University without any real back up. He also ignores that researchers backed up by prestigiousuniversities are well reliable.

In another part of his post he mentions that Hagos isn't reliable despite being working as a production designer on a film called Simshar, whose main topic is migration, it's causes and it's impacts (he conveniently didn't mentioned this), with he quoting this from the production designer article: (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" however he didn't mention that accord to the same article, the production designer isn't considered an art director anymore (he conveniently only says that is another name for art director) and that has multiple responsabilities on different fields in the production of a film. Another con on this part of his argument is that accord to [[6]] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (hagos is backe up on this part by the Oxford Brookes University) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties [7]), Again the assumptions he is doing aren't supported by any source, and he have admited to not be able to found sources or cite policies that agreed with the assumptions he is using in our discussion before [8].

Another of his arguments is that the map isn't situable because census data does not collect skin color information, however that's false because the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map [9] it's at the left side, in the bottom), he also says that biasuttis map is obsolete [10] However it is used on multiple articles (see file usage section) and have an article dedicated to it's methodology, and in fact, Hagos uses that map as a source and attemps at modernize it. He finally says that is impossible to get an exact representation of what skin color would be for each country, however the map doesn't attemp to be exact, the map strictly works with averages, and by the logic he is using the "completely accuracy" thing would be an issue on dozens of maps being used on wikipedia, icluding the ones already up on the human skin color article, isn't sensate neither objetive to ask so much to a particular map but let the other ones pass without any problem. He complains about the map being heavily based on personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data when the map bases itself only on scientific and governamental information, there is nothing that he is making up by himself, unlike tobus who uses oly baseless assumptions and intentionally half writes my arguments. And he have accepted his assumptions to be baseless before [11]

In short while his post on the reliable sources noticeboard might have looked convincing, he only wrote half of the discussion (the elements that were on it's side) while leaving out, half-writing and misinterpreting all my arguments (he also wrote the section at an hour he already knows i'm not up on wikipedia, so i couldn't defend myself, he also used the same technique yesterday to attemp to get me blocked [12] but failed, this makes very clear that he is in no way a fair player). I understand that you might have though that he was right for how he write it and what he write, but he intentionally ommited and misinterpreted all the things on which i'm basing my posture of this map being reliable and i ask you to reconsider your decision after reading the full problematique, not only what tobus conveniently wrote to make me and my map look bad. thanks for your time. Czixhc (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now, besides tobus writing incomplete information and intentionally misinterpreting my posture another problem that i've found while discussing with him is that he bases his postures almost totally on assumptions, his own post on the reliable sources noticeboard contains various examples of this, like the second part of this one: A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any). - There is no policy that states that what he is saying about "only artistic knoledge being published" is correct, what the policy on verifiable sources say is that the expert in question must have work on the relevant field, and the movie's topic on which he is the production designer is on the relevant field on this case (migration and issues related to it). Here is another blatant example: Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. - This makes clear that he deliberately ignored my source (the Oxford Brookes University) that actually considers him a researcher and a consultancy expertise on the topic [13], another blatant lie: I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. - Apparently he forgot that the name of the map is Human displacement map of the world" and that on it's description is stated that it wants to highlight the effects of migratory trends [14], finally, here is another one: I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture) - The main topic of the map is migration and it's effects, and for the other factors included he uses information that is already accepted and included on wikipedia (like Biasutti's map and national census data) he is not "making up everything by himself" as tobus claims. In fact Hagos isn't doing anything for which he isn't qualified for. What tobus is doing is the old technique of "saying a lie as much times as possible, enough to make it pass as a truth" Here in the talk page are more examples of him making baseless assumptions again and again if you are interested on seeing more of his ways [15]. Czixhc (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't you give me an answer? Czixhc (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at RSN, this shouldn't be taking place here. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Keeby!

Hello Dougweller! My name is Keeby! I saw that you blocked HistoryofIran, a user that I was having a discussion with about reaching a consensus on regards to a new map of the Sasanian Empire being made by the cartographers on the map workshop. He agreed to it, but he was also the only user that responded. Now keep in mind that I am NOT Canvassing when I say this, but I would like to know your thoughts on this matter. You can either agree or disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_workshop_team

Regards Keeby101 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Turgeis socks

I'm getting caught up by RL again and don't have time to follow the rest, but given the copyvio concerns and the positive SPI results, I'd venture you could block the rest yourself without this causing even an appearance of impropriety. Otherwise leave me a note where I can see it of anything else that comes up and I'll block tomorrow. MLauba (Talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's done now, I've been dealing with the copyvio, a thankless job (except I've been thanked below!). Thanks for your help. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I remember that :) I had a look at the listed IPs, but I think both moth recent contribs are too far away in the past to justify IP blocking them. I have to say, though, that the video game aspect of Turgeis' contributions certainly qualify as some of the more bizarre things I've seen here. MLauba (Talk) 08:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I saw your comments on the GOCE requests page. I spent a fortnight copy-editing Peninsular War in July/August, and while I suspected a copyvio I couldn't prove it, but I did rewrite and remove substantial portions of text that I considered waffle. Turgeis was editing concurrently to me; quite what was added I don't know. The copyvio was spotted in February here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and... thanks

Greetings Dougweller. Just seen your copyvio removal over at the Mutiny of Aranjuez and instead of simply clicking that "Thank" button, thought I'd pop in and do it "personally". I'm afraid you'll find a large amount of copyvio on a large number of Peninsular War-related articles – apart from the ones I've been creating myself recently, of course :) – not to mention ones that may not actually be copyvio, but are pure fiction, like Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle which, until WQUlrich got to work on it last month, paring it down from 50,000 bytes to 31,000, was a joke... one of those bad ones that nobody laughs at. We'll get there in the end. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal post. I'm dying here with copyvio. This sock farm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis and other editors this last few days. Spent several hours today just removing it. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let it get you down! There's lots of folks out here who appreciate y'all being there :) BTW, the name of the "sock farm" you mention rang a bell, and on checking, it turns out that I gave him/her a friendly warning precisely for this just a couple of weeks back. And here I was, complacent in my illusion of my powers of persuasion. Turns out that the only ones you can really count on are the out-and-out vandals... Sigh! --Technopat (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal monarchy

I just replied on my page, but I noticed you reverted the copyvio tag. Normally when an entire article is copyvio the whole thing has to be deleted from the record, history and all. Do you mind if I restore the copyvio tag so that someone can take care of that? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, or I could rev/del. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if you have the power to clear the whole thing go for it, then recreate the redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TY! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Italian war

Hi Doug. I've removed that article from the GOCE requests because now that Turgeis is indeffed, I don't see that it any longer has someone to champion it to GA. It's tagged, so it will get copy edited eventually. If you disagree with me (e.g if you want to take it forward yourself) please don't hesitate to revert me. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake by you.

Someone vandalized a page that you had edited. It is the article about Çatalhöyük. I'm not sure of the extent of the vandalizing - I just noticed the words "monkey butt " were inserted into the religion section. There may be more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwenz68 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and... "rolling way back"

Greetings again. Just seen the edit summary in which you refer to the possibility of rolling back to pre-sock version of Peninsular War. I personally think it's the best solution (copyvio is copyvio), and have no objection whatsoever, but maybe you'd like to mention it first to Baffle gab1978, a user who has done an amazing job on copyediting that particular article (although it's likely that much of that copyediting has had to be done on the content added by sock/socks...). Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pat, my head's swelling up now! ;-) .I've commented above in the section 'Turgeis socks'. I'm not sure how much copyvio text remains in the article since I don't have the book it was copied from, and while I'll be disappointed by a rollback to March 2013, if that's what needs to be done, so be it. Anyway, good luck to you both with the article, I'm sure it'll be heaps better without the copyvio text. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What book do people believe the copy vios come form...as we can see copies of most of Charles J. Esdaile books. -- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles J. Esdaile (2004). Fighting Napoleon: Guerrillas, Bandits and Adventurers in Spain, 1808-1814. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10112-6.
  • Charles J. Esdaile (1988). The Spanish Army in the Peninsular War. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-2538-9.
  • Charles Esdaile (2002). The Peninsular War: A New History. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-6231-7.
I think I got rid of most of it - as Moxy says, searching on the suspect text (anything from the socks) usually turned up the same text in Google books. I'm finished now, you might just take a look at what happens if you compare the current version with the February version before the socks. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar the Boneless

The passage you deleted talked about Imair as being described a leader of all the Norsemen in Britain and Ireland. The source cited as the Annals of Ulster. You removed the passage with the comment that the source did not seem to support the passage. I restored the passage with the comment "Annals of Ulster 873". The entry in the Annals for the year 873 clearly describes Imair as the leader of all the Norsemen in Britain and Ireland.Eroica (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the talk page - the bulk of that edit was about what historians think about Ivar, Imar and the location of Lochlann, none of which is in the source. And the source is a primary one so we should be citing what historians say about it, right? Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bothering you, he said, clearly indicating that's what he's doing, but...

there is now a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#John Carter which you might be able and/or willing to offer input, should you choose to do so. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question!

Please respond to this thread. I need your advice on this, I created an article a few weeks ago titled: List of species rumored/believed to still be alive that was deleted by Administrator Future Perfect Sunrise. He and I are not exactly on good terms, although I do have his page on my watchlist. That is how I found you when you posted on his talk page that you blocked HistoryofIran from editing. I was planning to revive/recreate my first article, but under a different name. Is that allowed? Or will I be blocked if I attempt to do so? Just need confirmation. Regards. Keeby101 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Rappaport

I had no Idea that i did anything wrong on that article and how was it a violation? i changed the way another editor told me to, the change some of the material and I certainly don't want to be blocked from editing. ACase0000 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Dear Douglas

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk message


Help Desk Message reply to your inquiry (see below please)

Why did you write "we" and not "I"? We allow only one editor per account. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant "I". It is only me (one person) on the account. At present, I am married, so sometimes forgetful in my usage, which I apologize for the confusion. I am the only one using the account now and in the future. Thank you. Publico2020 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am a new user, getting started in the last several months, and trying to learn how to use and contribute, edit, and work in Wikipedia as a volunteer and hopeful graduate to a higher-level of understanding its many features. . (Publico2020 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I have been, perhaps unwisely, fixing references, rewriting and/or removing copy/paste violations of User:HistoryofIran. Would it be more economical time-wise to simply revert back before HistoryofIran's edits? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your work with this editor. It sort of depends upon how many other editors you are going to revert - if there have been any substantial edits you might want to let them know. It's something I've had to do before. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying is vandalize Olympus Mons

Doug, someone hiding behind an anonymous IP address is trying to vandalize Olympus Mons. He added a short section without sources which, for all purposes, is a brief sentence about mountain climbing in Mars. I reverted his edit, and then he reverted mine. I reverted it back. If he (or she - though that gender is unlikely) reverts it again, can you kindly look at the matter? Titus III (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on my watch list now. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from adding a newly released book on the list of science fiction novels and short stories.

Hi Doug,

I tried adding a newly released book to the list of science fiction novels and short stories but it was removed by you for copyright violations. I am the author of the book and I only added a one sentence blurb about the book on the Wikipedia page. Is it still possible for me to add the book to the list?

Sincerely,

Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver9658 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrobieae

Can you tell me why Dendrobieae was deleted as part of a mass deletion of articles by user:Max Borin? I know nothing of the context surrounding these deletions. RJFJR (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply routine to delete edits and articles created by sock puppets. It can be recreated by anyone. I wasn't the only Admin who deleted articles by a number of related socks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know if there were known problems I wasn't seeing. RJFJR (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Hi, I am looking into creating an article on a grocery store/supermarket chain, and my question is: since the store has two different names which name should i use to create the article: Price Less Foods or Price Less IGA or use just Price Less? I thought since you seem to be an experienced user/administrator i would ask you for help. ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always do a Google search with the 'site' command, eg "Price Less Foods" site:en.wikipedia.org" before you create an article. That will show you if we have a relevant article already. In this case we have Houchens Industries - what I would suggest is creating 2 redirects, one for each of those names (but not for "Price Less"). Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=572168878"