User talk:Doug Weller
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first... |
| 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.
|
| 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. 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 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.
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
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
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=610312951 reported by User:75.73.22.81 Thank you.
The Guardian
My humblest apologies. The Guardian is a broadsheet, not a tabloid! I am sorry if I degraded your intellect for a moment or two there! But my point stands. Whether the Guardian Newspaper is Left-Wing or Center-Left. Being objective towards UKIP is something the Guardian, The Times and the Huffington Post have proven they cannot be with repeat attacks on UKIP and their character. If I cited articles written by the likes of Dan Hodges, you could edit UKIP to say it's a "racist", "homophobic" and "far right" party. These papers cannot be considered "impartial".
The reference included by your esteemed colleague saying that UKIP.org cannot be considered as a reliable source speaks volumes as to the biased editing that is going on with the UKIP page on Wikipedia at present. Put simply. It stinks! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (GMT)
requesting input
You and I think @Maunus: have I think had some involvement with content related to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the past and I would welome input from bot of you regardin the discussion at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, it seems to me that @Jeffro77: found some sources calling into question whether the JWs can really be said to have been founded by Russell. Some other sources say Russell did found the JWs - others seem to avoid the issue. In any event, the question has started a dispute between Jeffro77 and @BlackCab:. The matter of the time and conditions of the foundation of the JWs has broad content implications, as does its possibe identity or lack of identity to the "Bible students" movement, and I have some question whether the parties involved can resolve the matter on their own. I would definitely welcome input from you and Maunus, now and, if you two think it might help, in some form of dispute resolution. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- With respect, I don't see this issue as having broad content implications. Articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses and History of Jehovah's Witnesses already indicate the manner in which Russell founded the Bible Student movement and that a quite distinct group was later developed by Rutherford. It is only direct statements about the "founder" that need to be qualified. I am aware that most sources say Russell founded the group, however these are usually simply stating the 'official' history of Jehovah's Witnesses, which tend to whitewash the schism. The sources I 'found' have been present in the articles for some time, and I have previously raised this issue in 2011.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the Bible Students do constitute a distinct group from the JWs, content relating to the BSs probably belongs in separate articles, or at least, not in aricles about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The historical development of Jehovah's Witnesses remains inextricably linked to the Bible Student movement in either case. Articles such as Bible Student movement already exist--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- But the spinout content of "History of the BS," "Beliefs and Practices of the BS," etc., would also be required or at least in the interests of NPOV not be in articles apparently primarily about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is indeed the case that the spinout articles about JWs do not represent the beliefs and practices of the Bible Student movement, further demonstrating the distinction between the groups. Other Bible Student groups are very small, and the only concern about the necessity of additional spinout articles about the Bible Student movement would be notability. See the infobox {{Bible Students}} for current articles related to the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- But the spinout content of "History of the BS," "Beliefs and Practices of the BS," etc., would also be required or at least in the interests of NPOV not be in articles apparently primarily about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The historical development of Jehovah's Witnesses remains inextricably linked to the Bible Student movement in either case. Articles such as Bible Student movement already exist--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the Bible Students do constitute a distinct group from the JWs, content relating to the BSs probably belongs in separate articles, or at least, not in aricles about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think this is quite sufficiently clear already. Russelll founded the Bible study movement of which the JWs is today by far the largest and most significant group. Its a bit like saying that Jesus shouldnt be mentioned in articles about Lutherans because Lutheranism was founded by Luther.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- JWs aren't a group of the Bible Student movement. They don't even acknowledge the continued existence of the Bible Student movement. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are distinctly divergent from those of the Bible Student movement, which adhere to the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. The claim that it is like "Jesus shouldnt be mentioned in articles about Lutherans" is not analogous at all; the correct analogy would be that Jesus shouldn't be stated as the founder of Lutheranism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- JW consider Russelll to have founded their religion, the vast majority of scholars consider Russell to have founded their religion. The fact that spliter groups exist that think they are the true inheritors of Russells teachings is entirely to be expected and changes nothing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is not merely the case that some more recent splinter groups have 'claimed' to be 'true inheritors' of Russell's teachings. Rather, at the time that Rutherford was making significant changes, those actions resulted in most of the original members of the group defecting from Rutherford's group specifically to maintain their acceptance of Russell's teachings. Bible Student movement groups adhering to Russell's teachings existed before, during and after Rutherford's departures from Russell's teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant. The fact that a movment founded by X later deviates from Xs teachings does not mean that X is no longer the founder. It is simply invalid reasoning. Stick to the mainstream sources, and if there are any sources that mention that Rutherford could be considered a second founder because of the way he changed the doctrines then that view can be included as well. It cannot however replace the standard narrative of Russell as the founder and Rutherford as the reformer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Bible Student movement didn't "deviate from Xs teachings". Rutherford's faction deviated from the Bible Student movement, which resulted in most of the original Bible Student members leaving Rutherford's faction. The Bible Student movement continued to conform to Russell's teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant. The fact that a movment founded by X later deviates from Xs teachings does not mean that X is no longer the founder. It is simply invalid reasoning. Stick to the mainstream sources, and if there are any sources that mention that Rutherford could be considered a second founder because of the way he changed the doctrines then that view can be included as well. It cannot however replace the standard narrative of Russell as the founder and Rutherford as the reformer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is not merely the case that some more recent splinter groups have 'claimed' to be 'true inheritors' of Russell's teachings. Rather, at the time that Rutherford was making significant changes, those actions resulted in most of the original members of the group defecting from Rutherford's group specifically to maintain their acceptance of Russell's teachings. Bible Student movement groups adhering to Russell's teachings existed before, during and after Rutherford's departures from Russell's teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- JW consider Russelll to have founded their religion, the vast majority of scholars consider Russell to have founded their religion. The fact that spliter groups exist that think they are the true inheritors of Russells teachings is entirely to be expected and changes nothing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Correction: Jeffro found no sources, despite repeated requests for him to produce anything new. There are just two sources for the claim that JF Rutherford founded this religion in July 1931: Leo Chall in a 1978 issue of “Sociology of Religion” and an unidentified author in a 1953 book, “The Twentieth Century”. At Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 5#Founder refs a Wikipedia editor in 2011 listed 60 sources naming CT Russell as the founder of the JWs. These include The New York Times Almanac, Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Academic American Encyclopedia, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The World Book dictionary, Webster's II New College Dictionary and Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia. I won't bother to repeat myself here, but Jeffro is pushing a view that is basically synth. He has gained no support; he needs to stop now. BlackCab (TALK) 08:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed to have originally provided the other sources, and I already corrected that claim above.
- A lie told often enough may come to be regarded as 'fact', which certainly plays into the aims of Rutherford's schism. However, even among the sources provided at the archive linked above are some which indicate that Russell started some other thing, from which Jehovah's Witnesses developed later.
- 3. "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell" – A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209
- 33. "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell." – American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478
- 35. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was the founder-leader of the organization that came to be called the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, page 94
- 38. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the official corporate name of what is popularly termed the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born..." – Religious leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research, 1999, page 482
- I have never pretended that most sources don't re-report the JW claim that Bible Students—started by Russell—was simply a former name of JWs, with the resulting implication that Russell founded Jehovah's Witnesses, but the fact remains that Rutherford's group is distinctly different to the groups that continue to follow Russell's teachings. It is simply false to claim that Russell founded a group that teaches things that are fundamentally different to anything Russell ever taught, in view of the fact that other groups that are still called Bible Students still follow Russell's original teachings.
- If the articles are to be factual, Russell should be indicated as the founder of the Bible Students, and a formative influence in the development of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that Jehovah's Witnesses was itself developed by Rutherford as a group that branched from the Bible Student movement. This is actually already stated in the main text of the relevant articles. Indeed even other Bible Student movement groups are regarded as having a founder other than Russell, as previously linked at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses[1].--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that is an extremeley tendentious reading of those sources. The ones that state that Russell founded "something other" simply say that what he founded later changed its name. The argument that Russell taught something other than what the witnesses teach is a red herring, since all religions change their doctrines over time, yet do not acquire a new founder everytime they do that. Your argument looks to me as revisionism and Original Resarch.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, the New Catholic Encyclopedia does identify the "Russelites" with the JWs, but both the Jones EoR and the second edition of Religions of the World fall well short of identifying Russell's group with the JWs. That apparent refusal to identify them in recent well-regarded independent religious reference sources seems to me to indicate that academia may not identify the two as being the same. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be rash to make this decision based on inferences. The many many sources that identify Russell as the founder of the JWs can only be countered by very explicit claims to the contrary in the literature, that would allow us to state both view, but it is only when that claim that JWs was founded by Rutherford and not Russell becomes the mainstream view that we can present that as the primary one. There is a logn way to go on that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Jeffro should probably start writing
- It is not the case that the only options are to present either Russell or Rutherford as 'the founder'. As previously stated, the infobox could simply omit the founder, or it could note that Russell founded the Bible Student movement and that Rutherford transformed his faction into something substantially different.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be rash to make this decision based on inferences. The many many sources that identify Russell as the founder of the JWs can only be countered by very explicit claims to the contrary in the literature, that would allow us to state both view, but it is only when that claim that JWs was founded by Rutherford and not Russell becomes the mainstream view that we can present that as the primary one. There is a logn way to go on that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Jeffro should probably start writing
- FWIW, the New Catholic Encyclopedia does identify the "Russelites" with the JWs, but both the Jones EoR and the second edition of Religions of the World fall well short of identifying Russell's group with the JWs. That apparent refusal to identify them in recent well-regarded independent religious reference sources seems to me to indicate that academia may not identify the two as being the same. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that is an extremeley tendentious reading of those sources. The ones that state that Russell founded "something other" simply say that what he founded later changed its name. The argument that Russell taught something other than what the witnesses teach is a red herring, since all religions change their doctrines over time, yet do not acquire a new founder everytime they do that. Your argument looks to me as revisionism and Original Resarch.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Personal favor regarding Wikipedia Siduri article
- Original conversation and permission copied from:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim-Siduri#.22Siduri_Project.22_claims_1.0
- I've blocked the 3 old accounts and moved some material to your new userpage. Please don't create any more accounts. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Doug, thank you for moving the relevant content over. I'm sorry for the headache the extra accounts caused, each had a defined purpose, but until I have Wikipedia consensus approval to do so, I promise to use no account but Jim-Siduri.
- I also wanted to thank you for suggesting the village pump as a formal location where the "Siduri Project" or whatever it ends up being called can be proposed. I told you I would leave if this project for change at Wikipedia fails to achieve consensus.
- I'll admit, it is looking like a bit of a long shot, I'm not sure if I have the time, energy or even ability to make even the smallest change at Wikipedia currently.
- I'll also admit that it hurts me to see the text stub article we now have for Siduri and I wanted to ask you a favor?
- What? And I wouldn't call it a WP:Stub. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd really like to, if possible, keep the Siduri-specific parts of this conversation separate for the more general Wikipedia improvement and protection Wiki-concepts, so I will post this request to your talk page, with your permission?Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ok Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Doug, yes, of course. I agree, you are, as usual, correct. The current Siduri Wikipedia article is not technically a "stub" as per the Wiki-definition. Trust me, I'm genuinely very sorry to refer to the article as a "stub" as my many critics already have quite an impressive arsenal of permanent online mistakes I've made pointed at me regarding my competence to even be here at Wikipedia, let alone propose any form of solution to current or future problems, and I'm not doing myself any favors misusing Wiki-jargon.
- The WP:Executions joke was just my poor effort to inject a little humor into what is otherwise, in general, quite often an unfriendly, humorless and hostile Wikipedia environment; not you, but some of the other Wikipedia editors might consider being just a little less, how can I put this politely... a touch less grumpy. It would go a LONG way in helping recruit and retain new editors, contributors and talent. Ideally, all new editors would be welcomed into our ranks as a brother or sister who shares our passion for Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia's mission is incredibly important and serious, but let's not forget to have a little fun too.
- Having said all that, I am not a fool, I know I have many critics. This perhaps misplaced humor, the bot editing mistake and now the "stub" definition mistake, along with I'm sure countless other mistakes and "bizarre"/radical ideas, none of these things are helping me fit in. I did make you a pledge that would try to do better to fit into the Wikipedia community, and I can not help but feel that my actions over the past week, which have escalated beyond anything I originally imagined possible, should be regarded as a failure in that regard, and I wanted to apologize. I'm sorry.
- I also wanted to try to clarify what I meant by a text "stub", and I fully admit I had not read the Wiki-definition before I used it. I meant "stub" more along the lines of an encyclopedic article about Siduri that does not include the quote for Siduri's advice, which is, at the end of the day, the majority of what we know about Siduri. That encyclopedia article is so close to useless as an educational tool, so uninformative to the Wikipedia visitor, that it felt, to me, like it was little more than a stub.
- I don't know if this is possible under Wiki-regulations, but the use of quotes is probably the most basic form of multimedia there is. If Wiki-regulations prevent us from putting Siduri's only quote in Wikipedia's Siduri article, then perhaps we need to take a second look at our regulations, they may need some updating to reflect our increasing focus (hopefully) on integrating new multimedia. As you know, not including Siduri's advice in Wikipedia's Siduri article represents a serious loss to the Wikipedia visitor. I would propose that any useful encyclopedia entry on Siduri should include the quote for Siduri's advice, especially Wikipedia.
- Here is the text I would suggest we consider somehow re-incorporating into Wikipedia's Siduri article:
Gilgamesh, whither are you wandering? Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands. Gilgamesh, fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let days be full of joy, dance and make music day and night. And wear fresh clothes. And wash your head and bathe. Look at the child that is holding your hand, and let your wife delight in your embrace. These things alone are the concern of men. (Before Philosophy; The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man - Frankfort, Wilson and Jacobsen, Penguin Books, Baltimore, Maryland, 1949).
- I know you mentioned copyright concerns, but I think this quote of Siduri's advice, or indeed any Wikipedia text or multimedia, would technically fall under the blanket protection offered by the doctrine of "fair use" as codified in section 107 of copyright law (www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). I may be wrong, and I don't know yet if Wikipedia regulations reflect this (I am still buried in an enormous mountain of Wiki-regulations that need reviewing), but my current understanding of copyright law is that as long as the text and/or multimedia is solely being used for non-profit educational purposes, which is essentially the definition and function of Wikipedia, then we actually have, if my interpretation of copyright law is correct, an incredibly broad umbrella of legal protection for essentially all of the multimedia creation activities proposed in the Siduri Project, including the use of quotes, images, audio, video, software, or indeed any other data file would be protected under the same legal umbrella.
- Doug, you are the principal administrator for Wikipedia's Gilgamesh/Siduri articles. Like me, you feel very strongly about ancient Mesopotamian literature. I've edited the Epic of Gilgamesh and Siduri page with you for years, this is our shared passion.
- I want to bring change to Wikipedia. I want to improve the Wikipedia experience by making lots of multimedia, and the only subject I am sufficiently passionate about, to fight against the long odds, is the Wikipedia Siduri article. However, I am worried about this article turning into an ideological battleground, especially in light of the increasingly likely scenario that I will lose this virtual war and be forced out. The favor I wanted to ask you is, when disagreements inevitably occur, would you be willing to judge both sides of the argument and let me know your decision?
- I can't speak for my critics, but you have the experience, expertise and support to make fully informed decisions about content additions and removals to the Siduri article that few others possess. You have the subject-specific knowledge, you know the field, you know the Epic, you know who Andrew George is. You have the authority, both as an administrator and someone who's opinion I respect. You have the experience, the long and impressive editorial contribution history, and you have significant support in the Wikipedia community. I of course understand when you are too busy to review the details of a disagreement, but in the cases where you are available, would you be willing to fill this role?
- Ultimately, I trust your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would be willing to provide your judgment on any future disagreements regarding content additions for Wikipedia's Siduri article. Your judgment would very likely be respected, if not by everyone, then at least by me and anyone who respects my position on the matter. I would also regard it as a personal favor. Is this something you would be willing to consider?
- Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ok Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd really like to, if possible, keep the Siduri-specific parts of this conversation separate for the more general Wikipedia improvement and protection Wiki-concepts, so I will post this request to your talk page, with your permission?Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- What? And I wouldn't call it a WP:Stub. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Jim-Siduri. With respect to copyright concerns merely, Wikipedia does not rely on the latitude offered to non-profit educational use and in fact deliberately chose not to accept material licensed for non-commercial reproduction even though we are non-commercial - one of our chief goals as a movement is to create content that is as free from restrictions of possible, which includes permitting reuse (even commercially) and modification anywhere in the world, even areas that do not have fair use provisions. Accordingly, our own policy and guideline are deliberately stricter than fair use: WP:NFC. All non-free content must conform to that policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you, I really appreciate your input, expertise and primary focus on this copyright area. Would you give me permission to follow up on your talk page? Best, JimJim-Siduri (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). 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, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Jeremy Piven
Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Jeremy Piven? The edit summary says it is for grammatical reasons, but it actually substituted one grammatically correct phrase, "was a brother in", for another grammatically correct phrase, "is a member of". I think "is a member of" is more common language. I don't know if present tense is correct -- is a graduate of a university still a member of a fraternity to which he belonged when a student? But I definitely don't like "was a brother in" for WP. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- CorinneSD You are correct, see my note on the article talk page. "Alumnus" is what we should use here. Go ahead and fix it, I've left a note on the new editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I just said put AHMADISM into a proper place as they did in french vikipedia
Ahmadiyya
Please just drop this. They call themselves Muslim so Wikipedia does. We will not take sides in religious debates. Many Christians do not think Mormons (Latter Day Saints) are Christians, but they call themselves Christians so we accept that (just as many Protestants don't accept that Catholics are real Christians and vice versa). If you push this into article you will probably be blocked Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I just said put AHMADISM into a proper place as they did in french vikipedia SEE THIS TEMPLATE... 'Template:Islam (FRENCH) and then go a prepare necassary corrections 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- We aren't the French Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- GOT YOU BUT YOU SHOULD START LEARNING FROM SOMEWHERE
68.100.172.139 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your stories about Protestants AND Catholics
BETTER TO PUT Protestants AND Catholics INTO Ahmadiyya TEMPLATE... YOU ARE SO IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC YOU COULDNT GET THE POINT 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari & Gülen movement
IF THEY ARE MUSLIMS THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO APPROPRIATE PLACES
in your template:
- Alevi & Alawi ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS
- Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS
BIGGER COMMUNITIES AND MADHHABS ARE NOT SHOWN.....
- but SMALL GROUPS LIKE ahmadiyya ARE WRITTEN AS IF THEY ARE A MAJOR BRANCH OF ISLAM
- THESE ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING, YOU NEED TO CORRECT THEM AND STOP PROTECTING THIS TEMPLATE SINCE YOU DONT KNOW THE TOPIC
You are putting less important and small communities LIKE
as if they are MAJOR branches....
- Any group or sect which cannot be classified under one of these is not a part of Dīn of Islam.
- If you believe that it is a part of Dīn of Islam, so place it under any one of these: Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
- In addition, Alevi & Alawi are a part of the Dīn of Islam and THEY HAVE 1% population, then place it into template clearly
- Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
- IF YOU CANNOT, I.E. YOU ARE NOT EXPERT ON THE TOPIC just stop it O. K.
THEY SHOULD BE ON PROPER PLACES IN YOUR TEMPLATE
The following groups have larger populations...
- Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
- Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS
HAVE more members than Ahmadiyya, BUT YOU NEVER MENTION ABOUT THEM IN THE TEMPLATE!!!
- ON THE OTHER HAND, MINORITY PARTIES LIKE Five-Percent Nation OR Mahdavia IS BEING PRESENTED LIKE / THE EQUIVALENT OF Sunni & Shi'ite
- therefore your template is absolutely WRONG and should be CORRECTED
YOU HAVE TO CLASSIFY ALL SECTS UNDER ONE OF THESE:
WHY DONT YOU MENTION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:
- Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
- Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS
AS YOU DID IN Ahmadiyya
THERE ARE BIGGER GROUPS/ SECTs than AHMEDISM
- Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
- Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
WHICH ARE NOT IN THE TEMPLATE WHY DONT YOU PUT OR LIST THEM IF AHMEDISM IS ANOTHER SECT PUT IT SOMEWHERE BUT IT ISNT THE EQUIV OF sunni more than a billion nor equiv of shi'ite more than a 100 million
please See French Template for Ahmediyye and Others
Aḥmadī movement IS NOT A MAIN BRANCH OF ISLAM
THE MAIN BRANCHES ARE
if you claim that it can NOT be put under one of these titles, then it is a new religion, but not islam.
- Since you are able to put all the following groups like
Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement under one of these THREE main branches, namely Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij, in a similar way, you can classify Aḥmadī movement under one of them. If you claim that it is so special and cannot be classified under one of the 3 main branches of Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij; then the members of these groups, namely Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement CAN CLAIM that they are very special as well. In that case, the names of Gulen movement, Alevi, Alawi, Druze, etc. SHOULD BE written besides the Aḥmadī movement, this is my opinion.
- After examining this Template:Islam (FRENCH) Template:Islam in French, I've seen that they moved Aḥmadī movement under NEW MOVEMENTS, you may prepare a similar section and place Aḥmadī movement, Din-e Ilahi, Khojas, Nation of Islam, Five-Percent Nation, Malcolm X, Mahdavia under the title of NEW MOVEMENTS IN ISLAM. French template listed all these groups under Courants non reconnus par l’orthodoxie:
68.100.172.139 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Guyana
I just put "West African" (as an influence on Guyanese Creole) back in Guyana per the advice of Kwamikagami at User talk:Kwamikagami#Guyana. However, I noticed a strange string of edits. Just recently, an IP editor removed a hanging "28%", saying that it was unsourced (and hanging). It was hanging, but as I went back step by step in the Revision History I saw that on July 3 another IP editor (180...) had removed percentages referring to the percent of the Guyanese population that is Hindu and Muslim, and below that statements about it, that appear to be sourced (from a 2002 census report). Shouldn't all that information be put back in? I don't know how to do that without deleting other subsequent edits that may be all right (except for typing it all back in). CorinneSD (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
List of breads
You're right that the IP's edits added some improved language, but there were also a lot of sloppy additions. My original revert was too heavy-handed, so I've gone back with a more surgical approach and weeded out the broken images, links, and unsubstantiated additions of entries and origins, while maintaining the IP's improvements to wording of individual entries. I hope it meets with your approval 
Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Quest:WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THESE THREE GROUP-SECT SO YOU LISTED THEM SEPARATELY?
- Quest:WHAT WAS YOUR CRITERIA NOT TO PUT ANY OTHER GROUPS LIKE Din-e Ilahi, Alawi, Khojas, Druzes, Alevi, and Gulen movement?
- ANSWERS: 'Because it is completely RANDOM because you are incompetent on the subject of discussion!!
ahmadism SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER OF OF THESE GROUPS
- Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
- IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
- THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT ISLAM
- OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably undivine one i.e. it's divinity is an open ended question..
- YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
- what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups
- WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE Dīn of Islam
- A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified tariqah of islam
- QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
- ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones
- Aḥmadī movement,
- Din-e Ilahi (add),
- Khojas (add),
- Nation of Islam,
- Five-Percent Nation,
- Malcolm X (add),
- Mahdavia
- EVERYTHING IS RIDICULOUS ON THIS TEMPLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
ANI formalities
I mentioned you at ANI, in regards to the IP spamming on your and Dougweller's talk pages, as well as a template talk page and general... confusion on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks! I'm not up-to-date on the formal terminology; was just going off of what I had seen on similar pages. Koncurrentkat (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Armenia discussion
Hi Dougweller,
You sent me a message about editing Armenia page. I explained my removal of the image
.jpg)
by the fact that it has duplicates on Yerevan site (capital of Armenia) and Erivan fortress site (the old Yerevan). Note that no other picture repetitively appears in all those sites. It seems that it is intentionally inserted in multiple places about Armenia/Yerevan, and this is what I think the administrators should watch for and prevent.
Regards, Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Armenia discussion
Are you saying that WP:3RR rule overruns any content-related matter, including reversal of incorrect information? Thanks. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Cyber-Policeman AFraid so, unless it is an obvious WP:BLP issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Languages of Azerbaijan
I was reading a mild disagreement at User talk:Kwamikagami#Azerbaijani language article, so I decided to investigate. First, I read the language section in the article on Azerbaijan and made a few edits and left a question on the talk page. Then I read the article Languages of Azerbaijan. I made a number of copy-edits, but I also left several "clarification needed" tags with notes to editors, including one about dates given in the article as "AH". I said -- I hope I was correct -- that dates needed to be given as AD/BC or CE/BCE. But besides all that, a lot of the text quotes or paraphrases authors, but the texts are not given as references, and I wondered whether they should be or not.
I also wonder whether that editor was correct when she told Kwami that part of Azerbaijan is in Eastern Europe. I thought you might know that.
If you have time, do you want to read through this article? CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- CorinneSD That's a bad and probably hard to fix article. It probably needs a major rewrite. The original article is[2]. "Suffice it to say that the number of records and documents from Azerbaijan in the Pahlavi language are so numerous that there is little doubt that this was indeed the native tongue of Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Turks" is a pov statement. We can quote reliable sources saying stuff like that, but we shouldn't. But I'm not touching it, sorry. I've got many other articles I'd prefer to work on! Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot, I don't know about its location. I see it called a crossroads, but where the boundary is I don't know offhand. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- O.K. Thanks for your reply. CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot, I don't know about its location. I see it called a crossroads, but where the boundary is I don't know offhand. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Stubb
Army history on Stubby. A bit more moderate. Others, like Smokey, Rags and so on. Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Doug, Thank you for your feedback. Being new to Wikipedia, this is most helpful. I shall do some research on this matter, and should I find properly citable sources, will gladly reference them and try again. The subject matter itself is a most sensitive issue to most of those who would bother to read it at all, so such is sound policy. I am aware of some academic references, specifically regarding the work of Pythagoras, and regarding the mathematical properties of the number, itself, and so shall be happy to share anything of worth which I find, which is within the policy. The point of view is surely a minority one, but one which many might find informative.
Thank you kindly,
William Stephen Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstephenjackson (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding “draft" articles of already existing articles
Please see User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus, User:Ret.Prof/Celsus, and User:Ret.Prof/Jesus in the Talmud. These drafts all deal with topics already covered in extant articles here. Given this editor's fairly obvious inability or refusal to adhere to WP:V and similar in the now closed binding mediation and elsewhere before then I believe there are legitimate causes for concern here but am unsure what if anything can be done.John Carter (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Helping a new user
Would you be interested in explaining to User:ColeDryden[3] what plagiarism is? Perhaps I can avoid another "brick throwing" incident. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 July 2014
- Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?
- Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis
- Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!
- News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative
- Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week
Do you have a WP:RS for your affirmative statement that: "a claim for which there is no documentary evidence"? If you do, it should be cited. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's in the article already. We don't need another cite in the lead. See the talk page now please. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Newly-created categories
Should those two new categories exist? Category:Advocates of population moderation and Category:People expressing concern about population size. I noticed that their creator keeps adding them to articles that do not clearly support their addition. Plus, those terms ("advocates of population moderation") are, in effect, too ambiguous to be useful. Should I nominate them for deletion? --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Omnipaedista sure, nominate them for deletion. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
List of British Muslims and List of British Bangladeshis
Hi, I hope you are well, I was wondering if you could please offer some assistance. A sockpuppet from this investigation (one of whom, User:Newsameword, you have had previous dealings with) is now using throwaway IPs to edit war on List of British Muslims and List of British Bangladeshis.
I have tried to engage in a discussion on the talk page to resolve the matter (of which relates to both articles). However, after leaving one comment he is refusing to reply to the points I have raised on the matter and is just repeatedly reverting my edit, meaning that I cannot take the matter to WP:Third opinion to obtain a consensus as the discussion is not progressive. Is there anything you could do or keep an eye on the reverts? Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interpretation of cave art images
Hi Doug. A new editor has been adding extensive material to the cave painting articles exclusively referencing his own work:[4]
I don't have time to look into it now. Would you? Such as whether his work has been published in acceptable venues. (I ask you, because I know you've kept an eye on those articles in the past.)
Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Looks dubious to me. Eapress has only one release... So, seem self-published. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reverted and posted to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Doug and Jonathan. And for the kind note on his Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
My changes to the Flat Earth Society article
Hi, I made a series of changes to the Flat Earth Society article today which you reverted, citing conflict of interest and/or lack of neutrality. As you noted, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and wasn't aware that my changes would be considered inappropriate. I apologise for making the changes without first putting them forward for discussion on the Talk page for the Flat Earth Society. Although I am, as you also noted, associated with the organisation, I believe that the changes were fair and accurate regardless of my connection to what I believe is the official Flat Earth Society. I've put forward an argument (including supporting citations/evidence) for my original changes on the article's Talk page. I hope that this will be sufficient for reinstating my changes from earlier today. Thank you for your input on the initial changes.
Danielshenton (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton
submitting a contribution
Hello, Thank you for all the information you have given me. I looked through them all, but all the explanations seem a little vague to me. In regards to giving a contribution to an existing article on Wikipedia, would it be appropriate to summarize a portion of an outside reference I am using, writing it in my own words, and only using a couple of direct quotes from the references with proper citation? I think it would be how I write a research essay or at least in a similar way would be considered appropriate? I would like to know as I would like to contribute to an article, but I would like to do so without violating any policy on editing/adding contributions especially on copyright and/or plagiarism, which was not my original intent the last time.
Thank you ColeDryden (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Marcus Aurelius
Is the latest edit to Marcus Aurelius changing "Espejo, Spain" to "Rome" a correction of earlier vandalism or vandalism itself? CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Strangely, either is plausible, and possibly neither edit is vandalism. The rest of the article has it that his family was from Spain (not at all unusual for later emperors), but he was raised in Rome (the norm for a patrician) where they owned extensive property. So he could've been born in either, or even in between. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, thank you for the explanation. Interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given his importance, I would hope there is a scholarly consensus somewhere on which is correct, though :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Moroni shenanigans
Hi! I'm MagicatthemovieS. I wasn't trying to start an edit war. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I did not know the meaning of the term "wikilinks". Thanks for the heads-up.
UKIP
On my talk page you wrote: "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to UK Independence Party. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Adding the word 'propaganda' to describe a film violates our NPOV policy." The citation for the sentence where I added the word propaganda, found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html , explicitly uses the word propaganda do describe the film, so my addition of the word propaganda directly fits and is accurate to the source in no way can this be described as "add[ing] commentary or [my] own personal analysis". I would appreciate it if you would remove the erroneous warning you gave me. Thanks. --Jacksoncw (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Jacksoncw - no chance. That is clearly reflecting UKIP's views, hence the 'scare quotes' around the word propaganda. And even if a source called it propaganda that doesn't mean we cn without violating NPOV. In the article about the film we might mention sources calling it propaganda attributing such descriptions, but that's all. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, but either way, I was not adding my own commentary or personal analysis, but was reflecting the source. So whether I'm right or wrong on the word I believe the warning was erroneous because the reasoning is invalid. It was not a random injection of my own personal viewpoint, but a reflection of the source. --Jacksoncw (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Codex
I've been clicking around, seen various discussion and stuff, also discovered you are an admin. Has my newly discovered Bossy friend been given enough rope yet? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- -Roxy the dog I'd say so far he's just a pain. I'm unlikely to block him as I've been so involved unless he does something really outrageous. Let's see if he actually reports anyone anywhere. That should be interesting if he does. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, you are involved, and I support your position!! I'll get more popcorn. Thanks -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
.jpg)
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Azerbaijan
I know you're busy, Doug, but perhaps someone who is watching your talk page could answer this. I've been involved in improving the language section in the article on Azerbaijan. See Talk:Azerbaijan#Language. It is still in process. Then I saw some edits by Cyber-Policeman to that and other sections. I'm just wondering about the change to these sentences (third parag. in lead):
- "Azerbaijan proclaimed its independence in October 1991, before the official dissolution of the USSR. Earlier, in September 1991, the disputed Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh region affirmed its willingness to create a separate state as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic."
This editor changed "Shortly thereafter" to "Earlier, in September 1991," and added a source, with an edit summary saying that he was improving the chronological order of events. Now, perhaps the information is correct and it was earlier, but I think it is silly to put something that happened in October 1991 first, and then put something that happened in September 1991. Could someone check to be sure the date is correct, and then re-word the sentence so that it really is in chronological order? If for some reason this order is more desirable, then I think the information should be in parentheses.
Also, and this is tied in with a possible re-ordering of the languages in the Language section (see suggested revision by Mursel on the talk page) -- Cyber-Policeman added the information about Armenian back in (after I had deleted it because the sentence as worded seemed out of place) with a change, saying "Armenian is now spoken mainly in the de-facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh. ". I have no problem at all listing Armenian as one of the languages of Azerbaijan, but my question is: what is the best wording --- Cyber-Policeman's, Mursel's, or some other wording? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)