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 Reddi (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 17 September 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The current date and time is 21 August 2024 T 22:00 UTC.

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







Notice 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.
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.

University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment

This is just a heads-up to let you know that I'm once again having students create Wikipedia entries for a course this semester. I've posted the information for them here:

User_talk:Hoopes#Wikipedia_Assignments_for_.22Topics_in_Archaeology:_Ancient_Central_America.22_at_KU_.28Spring_2016.29

Dwapara Yuga / Yoekteshwar

Hi Doug, I'm Robert ( RobCZ ) and I think the last correction must have been five years ago on the particular year we are in according to this interpretation of Yoekteshwar. Swami Yoekteshwar wrote his Holy Science in 194 Dwapara ( 1894 ), thus currently we are in 316 Dwapara. Kind regards Robert, Amsterdam, Holland

Checkuser

Could you run a quick checkuser for me, please? I have a probable DUCK sock of an indef blocked user and I need to confirm. The sock is Sjick14, the indef-blocked user is CaptainHog. SPI at the far bottom will have the most current IP and account information, of course. Also, could you check for any sleepers while you are at it? Diannaa usually handles these, but she is offline at the moment. Much appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:06 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

I filed an SPI related to the above request. Just letting you know. - NeutralhomerTalk • 15:25 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:09 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Temple of Edfu

Hi Doug. Thank you to pay attention to Temple of Edfu article. Regarding my edit that was reverted, I do agree with you that there are many real good images to be show, but I don't think the article must be turned into a giant gallery, and there are pictures there that are placed in a very bad way, turning the article layout and diagramation awful. Finally, the image of the game is the only one that shows a restoration of the temple, so, I think that it deserves a place there. Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that article needs more text and less images! ;) Sturm (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturm: I agree there are too many images, but I thought you removed some of the best. As for the game image, how do we know the reconstruction was done by an expert on such temples? Doug Weller talk 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, talking about the fact of there are too many images, go on, please, select the best ones and reduce the number of images. As for the game image, you are right, we don't know how good/precise is that CG restoration. Anyway, I think that its still possible to show that image as a "free restoration", and indicate also that the temple is shown inside a computer game (a relevant info for itself). Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug. As you reverted me, I think I deserve at least an answer! ;) Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, User:Sturm busy, forgot. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Temple of Edfu images Doug Weller talk 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't weigh in on the photos, but I oppose the video game image. I can spot four inaccuracies in the architecture (the pedestals under the falcon statues, the soffit and the stairs in the doorway of the pylon, and the over-elaborate paving in the courtyard) before we even get to the artwork on the walls (a willy-nilly collectionn of Egyptian imagery from multiple sources, including the illustrations of Egyptian deities that User:Jeff Dahl created specifically for Wikipedia). If the video game's references to the Temple of Edfu aren't notable enough to describe in the article on the temple—and I very much doubt they are—I see no reason why the image should appear there. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian transliterations?

Hi Doug, what do you think about Armenian transliterations for figures that were not Armenian in origin (the Orontid dynasty) and lived during a time when it still would take about a millennium for the Armenian language to be actually attested (5th century AD) and on top of that to be written in that alphabet as well (also 5th century AD). There are multiple issues with this anachronistic fashion in my opinion. What's your take on it? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They seem a pretty bad idea but I don't know if we have guidelines for them. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) MOS:FORLANG says “If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence ….” So I guess it hinges on whether or not shared geography makes for a close-enough association of an ancient dynasty with a modern language. I would think not: for example we don’t provide the Egyptian Arabic for Ptolemaic dynasty, rather the Greek. If the native form of the name is unattested it should be left out; extended etymological discussion, including modern & variant forms, belongs in the article body.—Odysseus1479 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That makes sense. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BurningBlue52

It has been suggested that Burningblue52, a user that you blocked indefinitely, be unblocked on the grounds that his comments didn't constitute a sufficient legal threat. Please see this discussion at WP:ANI. DarkKnight2149 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CatcherStorm talk 21:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gaffney founder of Center for Security Policy

Hi, Doug: I'm writing in regard to my recent attempt to edit the Frank Gaffney Wiki page. Wikipedia claims to have a policy of maintianing neutrality in it's content; however I noticed that there is an extreme left-wing bias in the information provided on this entry, such as "Known For: Conspiracy theories"! Citations include such extreme left-wing organizations as "Southern Poverty Law Center," which gets its funding directly from George Soros! You can't get more biased than that.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is basically a "thought police" site, and the organization deems any speech they don't like (such as Frank Gaffney's work and that of others like him (Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel and many others), which is exposing the truth of Islam, terrorist organizations or those who support terrorist organizations, like CAIR (one of many "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land Foundation trial) and other related work, as "hate speech," "Islamophobic." This is hardly a "neutral" source.

I don't know who created the original page for Frank Gaffney, but it seems it could have been written by none other than Grover Norquist, who many people know has animosity toward Mr. Gaffney, because of his work. You may know Mr. Norquist's wife is Muslim.

This being the case, in an effort to provide some balance (or neutrality), I would suggest that this page be "cleaned up" and these biased sources be either removed or balanced with other sources with an opposing view. Or at least change the wording so that a reader knows that these sources are biased.

It is pages like this one which give Wikipedia a bad name, and we often are ridiculed on forums, etc., when we use Wikipedia as a source of information.

Please consider these suggestions, if you are serious about maintaining balance and neutrality in your articles.

Kind regards, William Otis — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNOtis (talkcontribs) 11:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, if you wanna help, provide reliable sources for any information you provide in the article. Not to mention try to remain neutral. I honestly don't know if you can seeing as you said this: "Citations include such extreme left-wing organizations as "Southern Poverty Law Center," which gets its funding directly from George Soros! You can't get more biased than that." Don't get me wrong, I understand different sources have different political leanings, but your statement is also biased. See what I mean? You need to find something that talks about the points you want to source in a neutral tone. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I think you're better versed on this topic (Gutians) than I am, but I stumbled across some huge amount of disruptive IP hopping on the article (see revision history), dating to not that long ago, which has resulted in the addition of a plethora of non-WP:RS sources which are "ought" to to back up the "claim" that Kurds are supposedly descendants/linked to Gutians. Oh, and that most scholars back this up as well (!). Would you agree with the entire removal of that part + categories "Kurdish people", etc? - LouisAragon (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same at Gutian dynasty of Sumer, but no, I'm not versed in this at all. Sorry. Is Kansas Bear around? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that's odd, I always thought that the Ancient Near East was in fact your niche. :-) I was wrong then, sorry for presenting you with this. @Kansas Bear:, you perhaps there willing to say something about this? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #226

How to proceed on a canvassing attempt?

Hello Doug, I'm hoping you can provide some advice here. I don't know if this is something that is directly relevant to the current discussion on Jared Taylor. I took a look at stormfront.org just now and did a search for "wikipedia", just on a hunch, as there's been a flurry of activity on the Taylor page recently, along with a talk page comment at white nationalism from a brand-new user. This post, dated 9.10.2016 at 0120, asks for users there to come and support the removal of the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" at Taylor's article. I don't see any evidence that that's happened yet, as the people commenting so far have all been established accounts, but I did think it's worth mentioning. Your thoughts? Rockypedia (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: Go to RPP and ask for PC to be added to the article, citing the Stormfront post. Might not get it but it's worth trying. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I admit I have no idea what RPP and PC are but I will find it. Appreciated. Rockypedia (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockypedia: The article is fully protected for a couple days. And if I'm the one handling the request at WP:RFPP, you won't get it (sorry, but requests to protect against future disruption that never happens are not unusual). --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


{{yo|Rockypedia]] WP:RPP for page protections, WP:Pending changes. See Talk:Frank Gaffney also, should this be under sanctions? I'm not sure. User:NeilN, what do you think? Doug Weller talk 15:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, @Rockypedia:. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solely looking at article content, Taylor's has one sentence on Trump. Gaffney's has substantial political references. Someone else can apply DS but it's too much of a stretch for me. --NeilN talk to me 15:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figure it can wait until the current protection on Jared Taylor expires. At that point, if we see a flurry of activity from anon IPs or from newly-registered accounts, that Stormfront post should probably be mentioned, yes? Rockypedia (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: Yes. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Yefimova

my additions on the "Yulia Yefimova" page were reverted, even though i cited sources. what seems to be the problem exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.48.108.54 (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I reverted you, you'd have to ask the other editors why they reverted you, but it appears that you might have been lucky to avoid a block. Instead the page was protected. It looks to me as though you are only editing there to attack the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) On the contrary, to my reading if anyone was attacked it was the critics, with the suggestion that the subject’s history with doping was being used as an excuse for politically or racially motivated disparagement. I haven’t looked at the sources, so I’m not defending the edits (which do strike me as a bit coatrackish), just observing that WRT the subject they make for a counter-attack rather than an attack, so to speak.—Odysseus1479 18:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, I was just relying on my memory, if I'm wrong, sorry. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

{{subst:Aviso destruir|Cosme Furlong|Aviso}} 189.180.241.148 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced?

Huh. Did you mean to say you are unbalanced? Or do you just have a hyperactive spellchecker? darwinbish BITE 19:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Lol. My iPad does that sometimes - puts a space between letters perhaps and then makes up its own words. And I don't notice it. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
I want to recognize your integrity in handling problematic articles with which you are involved (e.g. here and here). As an admin with the power to protect articles yourself, you've stayed honest in realizing your involvement in editorial disputes, no matter how petty, and requested un-involved, third-party administrative assistance instead of using your own. Exemplary. Cheers, Airplaneman 15:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PENTAGONALIS777 socks

I believe this on commons may be related:[1]. Some of the users aren't blocked on enwiki, and it's probably not necessary since the master uses so many throw away accounts that are abandoned within a few days. Just thought you might be interested in knowing. 16:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Interesting. I also know of 3 earlier socks on Wikipedia, PENTAGONALIS and PENTAGONALIS 2. And an even earlier one whose name I forget, begins with a T. As you say, they're soon abandoned. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Sro23 and Doug Weller: couple of suggestions; possibly (?) User:S7771 who started Joaquín F. Chicarro which two early socks User:PENTAGONALIS777 and (maybe the one you were thinking of DG?) User:BenTTT, who also both edited the Rafael Olvera Ledesma article. Shouldn't they both be deleted too, by the way? Also User:PENTAGONALIS 2 and User:Tuesttay both started / edited Rafael Camacho Guzmán, which is in exactly the same style. Tuesttay has done loads of them. Just FYI, sorry so long. Muffled Pocketed 18:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting lock

Hi Doug, requesting permanent lock on El Clásico article. If there is an article subject to more vandalism than this one I've yet to see it. It's the same repeated vandalism over and over (this has been going on for years)..the odd brief lock here and there achieves only a temporary solution. Cheers. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 UTC)

(talk page watcher) Done. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Neil. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided reverting

Dear Doug Weller,

A while ago, I spent some time improving an article which was riddled with unidiomatic and incorrect English, and in which the subject of the article was referred to by her first name. I assume you are familiar with the English language, and with Wikipedia's manual of style, and that you want to make articles better, not worse. But you left the edit summary "Find a grave not an RS for birth", which made no sense for two reasons: firstly, I had not added the link you referred to, and secondly, you didn't even remove it. Why, then, did you undo all my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.178.168 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(From a wandering Recent Changes vagrant) His revert reason is stated pretty clearly. You added that link in the previous edit, what good could possibly come from denying that? You claim in talk pages that you've been editing since 2002 but every one of your edits seems to be reverted for poor sourcing, removal of factual content, or disruption, not to mention the edit warring. Jergling (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What good could possibly come from your ridiculous lies? As I already said, incredibly clearly: I did not add that link in the previous edit; it was already there. And Doug Weller did not remove it; it was still there after his edit. What motivation do you have for lying about me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.221.40 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what motivation could I have? It's almost as if I'm an impartial third party who has examined the situation, collected evidence, and drawn my own conclusions! Jergling (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jergling (talk · contribs) Careless of me not to remove the findagrave source, but the main reason for reverting was in any case sockpuppetery. see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP - the IP above and another who edited my page after your response, and whose post I've deleted, have both now been blocked by other Admins. Thanks for dropping by, sorry you were subject to abuse. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a candidate for speedy deletion --J. D. Redding 17:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]