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 Sitush (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 10 February 2017 (→‎Britannica isn't a reliable source?: have you had it from new?). 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 12 August 2024 T 21:47 UTC.

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please - wherever possible - post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.


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.

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. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:06 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

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

"New Account" and archaeologist John Marshall

Hi Doug. This "new account", created a few days ago,[1] seems to be implying WP:OR and non-WP:RS synthesizes en masse, cross-article, and is using the findings of John Marshall, a British Archaeologist of some 100 years ago as the main "source" for these claims, e.g. [2][3][4]. I reverted some of his edits already, but I can't keep up with it I'm afraid. He's mass uploading images with OR captions as well on Wikimedia.[5]. Something should be done about this I believe. As you're often involved with such matters, I thought that this might interest you. Bests - LouisAragon (talk)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Doug Weller!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 25 December 2016 (UTC)

To anyone I missed, & especially my great talk page stalkers

Merry Christmas

Samsara is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Issue on the Tel Dan Stele Talk Page

Hi DougWeller, since you already commented on the Tel Dan Stele page, I thought I would ask you for some help/policy guidance. There is a clear consensus of four-to-one in favor of keeping the recently added sources (Maeir and Fleming) and yet a single editor has refused to accept the consensus, as well as refusing to accept the reliable sources noticeboard.

The editor made up a nonsensical rationale for removing the sources, and demanded that I find a way to convince him, while stating that "wikipedia is not about votes" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele&diff=next&oldid=758988527 and "If you cannot support your edit with a sensible rationale, it cannot remain." This is despite consensus on the talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard.

The editor then refused to accept the reliable sources noticeboard, saying it didn't deal with whether the source is relevant in context. I'm sure you know, that's exactly what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard does.

The editor has also been cursing me out during this whole process, and personally attacking all other editors who have contrary opinions to him. Ie: “If you answer with more general bullshit I will have no choice but to remove your sources.”, "you have exposed yourself as a fraud.” “You should be ashamed.” and so on.

Now a new editor with only 18 total edits made a revert using the exact same wording as the above editor, while their talk page discusses being behind a proxy. It's getting ridiculous and I'm not sure how to proceed. Any help/policy guidance would be appreciated. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: just seen this after suggesting at the talk page what's need sort an SPI. I really don't have time today to look at the content issue, taking granddaughter to see Rohue One and busy with other things. Maybe tomorrow. DRN or an RfC? Doug Weller talk 06:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy Rogue One! It was pretty good I thought! Thank you for your suggestions. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: are you still planning to look at the Tel Dan Stele talk page? Oncenawhile is now blatantly disregarding consensus, and a noticeboard, while dismissing reliable sources because of a rule he just made up (he is making things up as her goes along in order to disrupt). It is disruptive, in addition to the cursing and personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: I thought you were going to either go to DRN or have an RfC. I really don't want to get involved there, I've too much on my plate and I'm letting myself get distracted by getting involved in other things without finishing stuff I really need to do. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: No worries, I totally understand. I don't personally need an RFC or DRN as there is a unanimous consensus in support of my edits. They are good suggestions in general however!Drsmoo (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi Doug, I emailed you because trying to find this page on my mobile device was not working =)

I am wondering how to cite my info if the citations are simply the book itself?

thanks SperrysSpot (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)SperrysSpot[reply]

Responded on editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama Ding Dong/Ottawagalz

Why was Ottawagalz considered to be a sock of Dalai Lama Ding Dong? Just curious. Drsmoo (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: It's explained, in too much detail IMHO, on their talk page. See WP:DUCK. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-Columbian" is improper terminology.

"Pre-Columbian" is incorrect terminology. "Columbian" is French and Scottish and is in itself pre-Columbus in root and in tradition. The proper term is, "pre-Columbus". Very very different as Columbus implies hispanic or latin cultures from Europe which do not share similar traditions with the Columbians. I know this because my ancestors are of the Columbian surname and we don't share the traditions or cultures of those post-Columbus. Please correct this error. Thank you. are pre-Columbus Onewithnothing (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onewithnothing:It's not an error. See Columbia (name) for a start, or a dictionary. I have no idea why you think it is French or Scottish but that really doesn't matter. As I showed on your talk page, it's the term used in academic sources and we rely on such sources, see WP:VERIFY, not our own personal understanding. Please don't continue to change it. If you really think you are right then make a move request, see WP:MOVE to find out how to make a request, but don't edit to force your change. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC) It's been a very very long journey tracing this back but we have uncovered many resources that lead us back to the Domesday book of 1066. In this book we find that our family of the surname Columbia is in fact the name given to a Scottish Lord who also owned many lands in France. The name is Columbe in French and means Dove. The traditions are those of Pagan and Masonic traditions that presuppose any Cristian or Catholic influences. Academic resources as I'm sure you're aware are very agendanbased and they don't want to teach the truth often times when the truth isn't Cristian in origin. This makes sense when you begin to look at the traditions of those who are Pre-Columbus or Pagan traditions for the most part and the Columbians of Scotland and France who had their origins originally in Scandanavia and were of course also here in the Americas long before Columbus. There is simply nothing righg with the term, Pre-Columbian when it comes to the way you and Academia is choosing to abuse the term. Pre-Columbus is the right term for what you're intending to say. It's also a personal affront to our noble family, our traditions and our values.[reply]

Origin

Nobody is able to say what is the precise origin of the breed since it is a very ancient one. Some experts actually believe that it is a breed from the Mediterranean basin brought to Europe with the Arab conquest of Spain. Pictures representing the poodle can be found in Ancient Greece, and in the Roman Algeria and Carthage. It was believed to be a herding dog. This is not as easy to retrace the origin as for the Doberman or the bull terrier that have been created in England and Germany during the 19th century. If you are willing to apply your method to all breeds, then modify the majority of the wiki articles and try to retrace the origins of the breeds for centuries. The Irish water spaniel would not be Irish but probably Spanish for example, the Puli would not be Hungarian, but Mongol, the Whippet from the Arabian peninsula etc...What really matter is where the standart has been recongnized and fixed, since before that, this is not a breed. A breed is a race of dog with standards. This is the policy applied regarding international standards. I would remind you that the FCI is not a "French" organisation as you mentionned in one of your previous modification, but the major dog international organisation based in Belgium regrouping vast majority of countries worldwide (91 countries as up today) including France and Germany. And if you take a look on the german article about the poodle, it is also specified that the poodle is a French breed, like any other breed where the standart is fixed, and the country responsible to regulates all the aspects of the breed standard.. In my last edit I tried to be conciliant eventhought you erased an information accompanied with a serious reference. Why don't you add Russia, Hungary, and North Africa in addition to France and Germany in the article?? Take care--Gabriel HM (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should know the Fédération Cynologique Internationale isn't entirely French and I apologise for that. But no, it does not govern all international standards quite obviously as major organisations such ash the American Kennel Club and the British Kennel Club and Wikipedia is not governed by the FCI. I mentioned other countries on the talk page - where you haven't responded to me. Please keep this on the talk page of the article, not here. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel HM: pinging Doug Weller talk 12:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #246

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • You can now download query results as SVG images
    • When posting a link to an item to social networks and on messenger apps that show previews the previews will now be nicer and show an image. (phabricator:T51859)
    • We published the results of our research around Commons usage: How do heavy Commons users work? ...and what does that mean for structured data on Commons?
    • Setting up test system for federation (being able to use Wikidata's items and properties on Commons)
    • Setting up test system for lexemes
    • Setting up test system for improved change dispatching (sending notifications about edits on Wikidata to Wikipedia and co)
    • Doing more groundwork for lexemes
    • Working on better integration with Elastic
    • More work on Federation
    • Getting ready to deploy automated sitelinks for Wiktionary
    • Fixing a number of keyboard navigation issues based on your feedback
    • Working on the new datatype for geoshapes (phabricator:T57549)
    • Looking into linking more complicated external identifiers properly (phabricator:T151329)
    • Improved the link to the help portal on the query service (phabricator:T154993)

See all open tickets related to Wikidata.


Britannica isn't a reliable source?

Hello. I was told (at User talk:HistoryofIran) that you ascribe to the view that "Britannica isn't a reliable source". I'm surprised to hear that, as it appears basically reliable to me. Can you help me understand the issue? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Various reasons. Many of its articles are out of date, for a start. It's becoming more like Wikipedia with people contributing material, so we should avoid anonymous articles. Its articles are usually written by one person so many of them have a pov problem and don't present the full picture. I've found articles stating certain things as facts that a quick review of the literature show are disputed. I think we should avoid tertiary sources as much as possible, especially when it's not clear what sources they are using. It should almost always be possible to find a better sources, particularly in academic fields of study. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some advice on Britannica should be added to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites or otherwise put somewhere in the WP namespace to advise readers about the issue (e.g., like Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). I would think that the gut instinct of naïve readers would be to think it is a reliable source, and this would occur in many places on Wikipedia. Currently, WP:WPNOTRS says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited", and I see no discouragement against using tertiary sources at WP:TERTIARY. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would never use Britannica if an academic source is available, but I do find it useful for basic and uncontroversial facts which I cannot find elsewhere. For example, the first paragraph of List of Local Nature Reserves in Cambridgeshire is based on Britannica. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much like Wikipedia, no? Thanks. warshy (¥¥) 17:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here, I think, might relate to encyclopedias in general as well as Britannica itself. I've looked over quite a few topical encyclopedias on religion, for instance. Some of them cover fairly broad topics in only a single article, written by a single person, and so, on that basis, it isn't unreasonable to think that maybe the writer is just repeating what he saw printed elsewhere, sometimes things written years earlier. This might be particularly true if the writer had recently written something on the topic. Granted, on a lot of topics, like, maybe, Thomas Aquinas, where there haven't been many new developments in the topic area for a number of years, that might not be a problem. But in some others it could very easily be a problem, particularly areas in the broadly scientific area where technological developments have occurred and topics in which new discoveries have been made, where there are reasonable questions of possible POV questions of the authors themselves over- or under-stressing new material, or where the topic is of great breadth. Having said that, I think Doug might have been better to say something like "Britannica isn't as reliable as a lot of editors seem to think" or maybe, "Britannica is a suboptimal source in a lot of areas" or something similar. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Warshy: very much like Wikipedia. @John Carter: I'm not really sure what I said or where. I think that you and Dudley Miles are pretty much correct.
Do your own research but I was once told that if the Britannica url has "EBChecked" in the string then it has been checked by the editorial board. But generally, yes, I don't like to see it being used ... and don't get me started on all the crap we still use from EB 1911. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Encyclopædia Britannica. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a personal waypoint, I still own a hard copy of the 1911 edition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had it from new? <g> - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Jordan Codices

There are several updates as of 2016 and 2017 that authenticate the Jordan Codices. It is becoming evident that fakers would have to violate known laws of science. It is not cool that this topic was left in the fake category. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be non biased. At the very least it is important for users of Wikipedia to at least consider the possibility these could be authentic. Instead it is clear that Wikipedia is insisting on claims of forgery which have been disproven since 2012.

I was simply trying to get in this new update edit since last edit 2012:

2016 updates New testing said to confirm their age, say authors who have been campaigning since 2009 for the tablets to be recognised and protected. A further report by independent analyst Matthew Hood, an examiner of the erosion of the codices since 2009, has claimed that the “visible formation of mineral crystals as the metal reverts to organic compounds provides strong evidence of the great age of some of these artifacts”. "The suspicion of forgery, sown by the bloggers and a rashly published note in the Times Literary Supplement in 2011, has been disproved by several independent scientific tests of the metal as well as yet unpublished expert study of the writing. No one of those actually involved with research on the codices has any doubt about their antiquity," the statement said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3985150/Is-written-mention-Jesus-2-000-year-old-lead-tablets-remote-cave-genuine-claim-researchers.html

http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries-%E2%80%94-british-experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthetruth123 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)We are supposed to be not biased, and, so far as I can tell, the material as presented in the article is reasonable. Of the first link you provide, the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC indicates that, as per our guidelines, the Daily Mail is to be considered generally unreliable, so it doesn't count for much for these purposes. The Jordan Times article might be reliable, and I think Doug is probably a better judge of that than I, but I don't know if just one article in one newspaper is going to be sufficient to overrule the previous finding of the codices being fake. Regarding the unpublished study you mentioned, we really can't deal with those until they are published, so that isn't really useful either.
It is I think maybe not unreasonable to ask that the material be changed on the article talk page, maybe with some of this information added in a 2016 updates section, and I see that you have done that. But, otherwise, I think that if the new studies are more verifiable, they will almost certainly in short order be taken up by the academic journals and other media. Honestly, considering the Jordan Times article was in December and it is now February, I am more than a little surprised that this hasn't been widely reported in English already. That is, if the JT material is itself considered reliable. Hood's statement is presumably somewhere discussed in sources independent of him as well, and those sources would be useful. Regarding his own reliability, well, I don't know anything about him, but I am aware of several people in the broad field of Biblical archaeology who are about as scientifically reliable as Erick von Daniken or Edgar Cayce, and it might be best to have some discussion regarding the degree of his reliability as well. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=764766177"