This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Doug Weller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The current date and time is 22 May 2019 T 16:00 UTC. 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.

User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/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...
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.



User talk:103.93.201.2[edit]

My Dear Sir, i am praying you the God of the Deo Sun Temple article Write and update articles because I do not know much English. So please update on Wikipedia Deo Sun Temple By updating article by yourself, which will make us very happy. please i am personally requesting you please it is my really really Best sun temple and famous temple in world.

User:Alg01[edit]

Hey Doug, (I'm Aṭlas, just losing my pw all the time)

There is an editor with a Single-purpose account, who is removing Morocco/Moroccan from every article he edits. My sock radar is telling me that this is one of Bokpasa's socks. The thing that forced me to say this is that they're sharing the same "anti-morocco" agenda. Just check out his edit history and you'd be amazed about the many times he's using "Removed: X morocco", "Removing Moroccan"...in his edit summaries. But, I don't want to rush. I just wanted to tell you about his behavior. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, are you here? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings gentlemen, allow me to defend myself. First of all , no idea who this "Bokpasa" guy is so your "sock radar " is kinda off kiddo. Regarding my removal of "Morocco" from any article prior to 1956 is simple : this country did not exist at the time and for a person who calls himself a rationalist , you aren't doing too well. Notice that I often replace "Morocco" with its historical name " AL maghreb- al Aqsa". The only times I don't is regarding stuff like the Marinids who are not Moroccan. So added a modern country's name to a past entity is somewhat of an "appropriation" don't you think ? Now if you simply responded to the message I left you on your talk page , we would be here now would we. And again, rather than reverting my edits for no reason , talk to me. You have not yet attempted doing so. Alg01 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So your pov is more reliable than the Encyclopaedia of islam, The Cambridge History of Africa, A History of Islamic Societies, etc. ? When these books are plainly stating that a dynasty is Moroccan or a person is Moroccan. They're just lying? The authors in my edit of Kingdom of Tlemcen, are all lying? You're more specialised in islamic history than "Chantal de La Véronne" who asserted in the Encyclopaedia of islam, that Wattasids were a Moroccan dynasty? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question ? Are the people you cited more experienced than the Abd AL Rahman and Yahia Ibn Khaldun ? Al-Maqquri ? Al-Tenesi ? I'm not pushing any POV , simply citing what is written. Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco...leaving me to suppose they have a personal bias. Especially if they're French , France has worked it's ass off to destroy Algerian history after their humiliation in 62. Next thing you'll tell me is that B.Lugan is a respectable writer. What a joke. Putting "Moroccan" infront of berber dynasties like the Almoravids ,Almohads , Marinids, when authors that LIVED those events clearly state their ethnicity not being native to what is now Morocco. Seems to me that you're the one pushing a POV. Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis. I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country. Can you say the same ? Nope. Without biased historians , what is Morocco's history do tell me? Alg01 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the people you cited more experienced than the Abd AL Rahman and Yahia Ibn Khaldun ? Al-Maqquri ? Al-Tenesi ?

You know that these are primary sources, and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

I'm not pushing any POV , simply citing what is written.

Actually you are pushing a pov and you're just refusing to admit it.

Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco...

So, what? "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

Especially if they're French , France has worked it's ass off to destroy Algerian history after their humiliation in 62.

That's not my business or wikipedia's business. It's your own pov. French, Turk, Spanish, English....It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is their Reliability.

Next thing you'll tell me is that B.Lugan is a respectable writer. What a joke.

That's a straw man fallacy. I never used any of Bernard Lugan's works in wikipedia, and I don't consider his works reliable.

Putting "Moroccan" infront of berber dynasties like the Almoravids ,Almohads , Marinids, when authors that LIVED those events clearly state their ethnicity not being native to what is now Morocco.

This reflects your non-neutral pov.

Seems to me that you're the one pushing a POV.

Tu quoque fallacy

Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis.

Your biased and non-neutral pov. Thanks for showing your true colors.

I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country.

you're showing your nationalist agenda. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Oh wow you've got me oh noooo" Sarcastic enough ? If me refusing to put "Morocco/Moroccan" , a modern entity ,in front of past countries makes me biased then so be it. The only pov i'm pushing is that of the book i'm reading - it seems to me that adding a modern nationality in front of a past country IS pov pushing but alright. Also , I don't directly read from those books , I do use secondary sources that eventually translate and give a sense to what the author is saying -verify it yourself. -And I talked about B.Lugan because 1, he isn't a reliable source and you can read all about his failure online , 2/ because he is often used by Moroccans to actually support their agenda and 3/ He's actually because used as source at least once in the following; Almoravid's, Almohads,Marinids , Wattasids. Anyways , I don't have all day to chat with you , I have done nothing wrong. Everything I add is used from a reliable source. What bothers you is me removing a nationality from a dynasty that doesn't belong to said country. It's called histical appropriation and i doubt it goes with wikipedia's guidlines. Next time , respond to you talk page so that we can talk it out like civilized human beings rather than complaining to an administrator.

Alg01 (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for deletion[edit]

Doug, I want to nominate Names and titles of God in the New Testament for deletion, but Wikipedia's guidelines leave me none the wiser on how to start the process. Can you suggest what I should do? (I anticipate strong opposition from one editor, agreement from others). PiCo (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: what's your rationale? Twinkle does it automatically by the way. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The rationale is that the article has no rationale - the name of God in the New Testament is God (Theos in Greek), and his title is Lord (kyrios): enough information for exactly one sentence. A user who seems to be affiliated with Divine Name has padded it out to absurd lengths.PiCo (talk)
@PiCo:, with great respect, let me express that the fact that you do not agree with the different scholarly points of view does not mean that they are "absurd". Regarding your statement "Irrelevant - this isd about Jesus and the NT", let me tell you that the tetragrammaton hypothesis in the NT is not an obstacle to a trinitarian view. At least 14 scholars who propose the existence of the Name of God in the New Testament can be cited. Someone can quote one that proposes an original Κύριος or θεος in unavailable New Testament manuscripts, and even if there was one, it would be against 14, and with the state of the current erudition, some plausible explanations must be found. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd participate in that deletion debate just for the craic. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Can some cite someone who says that "the name of God in the New Testament is God (Theos in Greek)"?. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco I really don't want to discuss the article here. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Doug, I think I left the topic. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
But I still can't work out how to start the listing process. ::::I anticipate plenty of craic, Roxy, and I'm ready for it. PiCo (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@PiCo: I don't know why you don't want to use Twinkle, but if you won't, I'll do it for you. Write a rationale based on its lack of notability and put it here. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD - Names and Titles of God in the New Testament[edit]

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [1]. PiCo (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Message[edit]

I left you a response on my User Talk page, but I don't know if Wikipedia automatically gives you a notification, so I'm leaving this here in case it does not.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib[edit]

Hi, I see that you put talk page notices on the top of the talk page that Rashida Tlaib is currently under several DS sanction areas. However, I am not sure if you logged it, I didn't check. But more importantly, you didn't place an edit notice on the actual page itself which is required, and I also don't think the page should be under ARBPIA sanction. We shouldn't restrict pages when fewer sanctions can be applied. BLP obviously applies, as does US politics, but I don't see how her entire page should be under ARBPIA subject area. Thanks. In any event, the page requires an edit notice, not just a talk page notice. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, "the area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." However the specific sanctions only apply to pages that are "reasonably construed". This may all be revisited this year but no edit notice is required as there are no specific sanctions on the page, and we don't automatically log pages that don't have such sanctions. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: You should not be commenting on ARBPIA sanctions, since you are topic banned from the area. But for what it's worth, I think Doug got it exactly right here. This is "broadly construed" to be in the topic area, but not "reasonably construed", so only DS are active. Placing a template noting that DS are active requires no logging. The template isn't even required; it's just a courtesy notification. ~ Rob13Talk 14:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

COI?[edit]

You know your way around WP and its partners much better than I, so I bring this query to you. I have just come across Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC, which begins its article with "We". Doesn't such a personal statement breach WP:NPOV? I don't doubt the great value of the project's work, but do wonder who is monitoring the work of its "Wikipedian in residence", who seems mainly responsible for contributing to that page and supervising the project's alumni. What important fact am I missing? Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: First, it is not an article, so WP:NPOV does not apply. Second, museums and cultural archives are exempted from WP:COI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Blacklisted[edit]

Hello Doug, Thanks for keeping wikipedia clean. Your revert was on the basis of the quoted scientific paper being published at a Journal (Archeological Discovery) from a company, SCIRP that is blacklisted. However, I can see some serious scholars (professors) publishing at Archeological Discovery. Who decides that overall each and every one of the 200 journals are not trustworthy? Is this worth discussing with the community? --Batdegroot67 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Bernard

@Batdegroot67: As reliability is not the default anyway, I think we start with why should we use it as a source? Look at this recently published article.[2] Of course Robert Schoch is well known to be WP:Fringe, but look where both authors are: "Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization, College of General Studies, Boston University." which is affiliate with this place. The other author is an "independent researcher".[https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=83873] Doug Weller talk 16:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) By the way, Scrip.org is on our blacklist so I had to "nowiki" it. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Some advice needed[edit]

Hey Doug, since I'm still fairly new I was wondering if you know any editors I can consult with. For example, there's this article about a murder suspect from a notable case. Does that make the suspect notable? Since the only thing this person is famous for is killing a kid, I don't think it meets WP:PERP. Obviously this is one example, but I don't want to assume I'm always right. Is there a place I could consult with fellow editors in cases like this besides the talk page?

Oh and just in case you're curious, this is the article in question: Jos B. Alex.osheter (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alex.osheter: interesting. The Dutch article on the case[3] mentions the suspect but he has no article of his own. That doesn't prove anything though. The place for this issue is WP:BLPN. Be aware that not every post there gets a detailed response. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald[edit]

Mr. Weller, you told me to source my claims and that's what I did (with a WaPo article). Then you 'sanctioned' me for doing it. Greenwald has described himself as an activist journalist (see the source I provided). And he is best known for his journalism, not being a lawyer, so I disagree with your point on that. He doesn't practice law. Anyway, I thought I was adding value to the page by pointing out an important piece of background information on the source of a quote. Thanks for your attention and I resent your sanctioning me. Ahjotina (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019

(UTC)

@Abjotina: I haven't sanctioned you. I think you misread the alert. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA[edit]

Doug, you're mistaken in telling Alex.osheter that ARBPIA doesn't apply to him yet. this AfD he created clearly falls into the discretionary sanctions provisions. More eyes on this editor would be good. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 04:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: I'm puzzled. I told him "you don't have to worry if you follow the above and WP:AGF (even if others don't)." The "above" was the alert and information about ECP, etc. I can't see how you got the idea I told him it didn't apply to him yet. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope your well[edit]

Just popped in to do a few things out of the blue. Noticed this, wondered how I and everyone else missed it the last few years it was up, haha. If the user wasn't already indeffed for the last 2 years I'd recommend their edits be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Not sure if it was malicious or if they really had absolutely no clue what they were talking about, but the addition of "the southern shores of the Great Lakes at Western New York and Western Pennsylvania" to an article about the Mississippian culture is about as accurate as saying they were in Arizona. I actually laughed a little when I first spotted it. Though I'd spread the mirth. Anyways, hope you're well and keeping up the good fight. Heiro 08:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ashdod[edit]

Hey, isn't the article's History section pretty good evidence for continued inhabitance? Alex.osheter (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alex.osheter: sorry Alex, it actually isn't. It says things such as "destroyed", that the modern city is near the ancient site (implying that there is a discontinuance), and above all, we need archaeological sources stating that. I found one ancient city that was deserted for centuries before being refounded in the late 19th century. That was one of the oldest but not oldest continually inhabited - same for Jericho. One line in Ashdod is "In 950 BCE Ashdod was destroyed during Pharaoh Siamun's conquest of the region. The city was not rebuilt until at least 815 BCE." The article really needs good sources. By the way, you forgot to mention which source you were unhappy with when you posted to the talk page. I don't think I'll have time tonight to look at it though. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Okay, then could you remove the link that sent me to that page in the first place? Since it's an incorrect statement. I also updated the Talk page, it's just a quick edit. Replace "www" with "archive". Cheers, Alex.osheter (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Jihad Watch[edit]

Doug Weller, Your oversighter hand has a chilling effect on fixing POV. Compare the wiki entry on Jihad Watch, your incorrect current first sentence ("Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog...") with that of Sourcewatch: "Jihad Watch is an anti-Islamist website and blog."[1] The conspiracy is yours - the conspiracy of silencing criticism of Islamism (violent, terrorist political Islam) by calling them hate groups and islamophobic. FYI, Jihad Watch includes Muslim authors. None of its authors endorse hatred of Muslims. Commentators promoting violence on JIhad Watch's open forum are removed. Some of current sources are dubious, partial and disputed. For example, Guardian is a UK left journal and hardly an objective source. As for the broken sentence "Jihad Watch has been described --as a hate group-- by the Southern Poverty Law Center[19][10] and Anti-Defamation League.[20]" The SPLC hate groups mapping is disputed, also in court suits. The SPLC drew hate group lists by political preferences and not by stated criteria.-Yohananw (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Hi. Could you please block this obvious sock of User:Nittin_Das? Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Compare [4] vs [5]. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

EpiclyFourYearsOld[edit]

Hello. I see that you recently blocked EpiclyFourYearsOld. Mr.McGurhgan appears to have similar theories. Certes (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: done and thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi Doug,

I have recently received a message that some of my posts on talk pages were removed, but it's not clear to me why. The message notes there is nothing wrong with what I did, but my posts were removed nonetheless, so I thought I'd ask you for clarification if it's not too much of a hassle. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Source Watch on Jihad Watch". Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch. Retrieved 19 May 2019.