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 TotalFailure (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 23 July 2018. 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 8 September 2024 T 16:07 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.

Is "Democracy Now!" an American leftist or progressive alternative radio or television program?

Concening our back-and-fourth in Alternative media (U.S. political left), I thought it would be best if we discuss whether Democracy Now! meets the criteria to be listed. It seems to me that the critera to be met are being:
1. American media

  • From Wikipedia's Democracy Now! article, "Democracy Now! is an hour-long American TV, radio and internet news program," meeting the criteria for American, radio, and television.

2. Alternative media:

  • From Wikipedia's Alternative Media article, "These media disseminate marginalized viewpoints, such as those heard in the progressive news program Democracy Now!..."
  • Democracy Now! is listed by Kathleen D. Rickert, a reference librarian at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minnesota, in "Media and Democracy: Resources for alternative news and information," published by The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association in College & Research Libraries News Vol 72, No 1 (2011). This indicates that democracy now is considered an alternative news resource.

3. Progressive/leftist:

  • From Wikipedia's Progressivism in the United States article, "In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice."
  • From Wikipedia's American Left article, "Leftist activists in the United States have been credited with advancing social change on issues such as labor and civil rights, civil liberties,[3] peace, feminism, LGBT rights, minimum wage and environmentalism, as well as providing critiques of capitalism."
  • From Wikpedia's Democracy Now! article, "[Democracy Now!] combines news reporting, interviews, investigative journalism and political commentary with an eye toward documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy." and "[Democracy Now! is] described as progressive by fans as well as critics..."
  • Democracy Now! is linked to three times in Wikipedia's Progressive talk radio article.

Given the evidence, it is my opinion that the answer to the above question is yes. If you believe there are additional criteria to be met or that Democracy Now! does not meet these critera, please explain.
--Talib1101 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Talib1101: I'm happy to discuss this on Democracy Now's talk page where others can see it, not here. You'll need sources saying DN is leftist or progressive alternative. Those are required by policy. Please always start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Sweden

Doug_Weller The references there don't mention such information though also why is the information even included in there its not even realted to the topic in hand? bolanriver (talk) 9:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've replied to your message.

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Paquito590's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your revert at Timeline of human prehistory

I am afraid there is a misunderstanding probably due to less than perfect formulation in the MRCA article: 

".. younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years"

If you read the four articles about (Y-MRCA), (mt-MRCA), (IAP), (MRCA) and check the references they give, you will see that the time estimates for these four vary a bit depending which estimator, and are respectively as follows:

Est. Period Ancestors
200,000 to 300,000 years ago Y-MRCA - Y-chromosomal Adam : ancestor common to all humans if you only follow the fathers
similar, possibly 140,000 years later than Y-MRCA mt-MRCA - Mitochondrial Eve : ancestor common to all humans if you only follow the mothers
few thousand years before MRCA IAP - Identical ancestors point : the latest time a contemporary group of humans lived, where each of these is an ancestor of all living humans when you follow both parents (others living at the same time do not have living descendents)
2,000 to 4,000 years ago MRCA - Most recent common ancestor: The latest person who is the ancestor of all living humans when you follow both parents (others living at the same time either do not have living descendents, or are ancestors of some living humans)

The 200,000 years that appears in the citation above is relevant for single parent estimates (Adam and Eve), not the two parent estimates (IAP and MRCA). I am going ahead and reverting back your deletion which I assume was due to this unfortunate formulation. Cobanyastigi (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobanyastigi: thanks, but it was due to my reading the Mrca article which says in its lead "The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years, and it may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.". I've added two more sources on the talk age, but they aren't more recent. Once unsourced material is removed, it should not be replaced, as WP:VERIFY is fundamental policy. If you can find a peer reviewed source (more than a letter), then feel free to restore it as I think it should be in the timeline. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think one of the references in IAP article [1] should suffice for both IAP and MRCA. Its abstract concludes with the following:
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one or of all living humans.
Further references on alternative, more detailed but essentially similar views (even a formula for calculating the time) are given in the main article.Cobanyastigi (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf On the Common Ancestors of All Living Humans

Wikidata weekly summary #321

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Worked on persistent storage for Senses on Lexemes - started by giving them a stable ID (phabricator:T198033)
    • Adding "mis" language code to the list of language code options on Special:NewLexeme (phabricator:T194771)
    • Made the Items used for Language, Lexical Category and Grammatical Feature show up on Special:WhatLinksHere (phabricator:T195302)
    • When adding a new Form the spelling variant is now filled out automatically based on the Lemma's (phabricator:195708)

Sock IP of "Astore Malik" (?)

Saw you reverting one of his edits today (rightfully).[1] Made a brief search; this IP, is, in all likelihood, used by "Astore Malik". He's the same user who created the "Sadduzai" article today and redirected "Sadozai (Pashtun tribe)" to it.
Though the account was created recently, a brief look at the account's talk page shows that he has already received many warnings by numerous veteran users.[2]. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: consulting about the best way to handle this as it's more complex than what you've told me. Tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

based on what edit am i being topic banned? עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the backstory but I had a look at your talk and see that it had a final warning regarding the addition of "He is also a traitor" to a WP:BLP article with this edit. That would be sufficient reason for a topic ban. An article is not a collection of bad things people have said and it is obvious that declaring a politician to be a traitor in a BLP article is totally misguided. For one thing, no one can be traitor unless convicted after a court procedure. You may not be aware how WP:BLP is applied so I have left a BLP notification on your talk (and note that you have received two US politics alerts and one Arab–Israeli alert: 18 September 2017 + 17 October 2017 + 5 February 2018). Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if its that one edit then why the topic ban which doesn't have anything to do with that edit עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 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.–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:InfoWars

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:InfoWars. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re My Edits

I felt my edits on Conspiracy Theory were quite well done. I don't know why I bother to contribute to Wikipedia when I do a really really really fair and accurate well sourced fix like that.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=851578287"