This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Doug Weller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Dougweller)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The current date and time is 21 October 2018 T 08:22 UTC.

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

Talk Page


Site Map




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.

Islam in Sweden[edit]

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)

Was blocked unjustly, and via circular reasoning[edit]

Hello! You blocked me. This I circular reasoning for the first delete by Yaniv was inappropriate. He called my post “garbage”. I have a right to appeal to the editors board and speak, and people have been siding with me, but you and others keep blocking me! For nothing I’ve done on the administrators page! This is not okay! You aren’t using logic or sources, but ridiculous rules that you use whenever you feel it meets your agenda! STOP! Thank you for your time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2018‎ (UTC)

Mande languages[edit]

Thank you for your concern about the Mande world or what you do to "keep information accurate". What I added to the page is true and I do not have time and energy to do what you're asking of me(the process of proving this to you). I thought people, including you, might want the whole truth, not a piece of the pie. Well as of 10/14/2018 at least you know now there is another version of how name "Africa" came to life and it's verifiable among people that speak the Mande language. Since it is your job and you care for the truth, why don't you investigate and take care of that for the general public, because; as a user I could have only contributed, but you took it down, which I understood. I hope you also understand my not wanting to take this furthermore.You should also know that the majority of people in the deepest parts of Mande do not have internet access. As a result, they do not get on sites like wiki. If this is a site where people honestly put information that are true then this source should be added and credited. Otherwise, it seems to me that Wikipedia; which I have trusted and used for many years; is not as reliable as I thought. Best, Sylla — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'golo Sylla (talkcontribs) 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@N'golo Sylla: apologies for taking so long to respond. We have two relevant basic policies - WP:VERIFY which " Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." The other is no original research which means that we can't rely on anyone's personal knowledge. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on description: anti-immigration, low-immigration or both[edit]

This conversation in the Center for Immigration Studies has stalled apparently, but so far there are no editors defending the "anti-immigration" position, whereas two editors (myself included) have argued for the "low-immigration" phrasing. How long does this comment period until changes are made? Thanks. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Darryl.jensen: it varies. If a lot of people participated and all argued one way, it might be closed after a week or two. It is withdrawn from the RfC system after 30 days. You do know that people get randomly notified? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was not, thanks Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #334[edit]

User talk:CaptainCandor[edit]

I'm the worst admin ever. (shrug)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

On the bright side, whoever was the worst admin of all time before you is probably relieved to have given up the post. Alephb (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


@Doug Weller: I cannot believe that, as an admin, you would allow such a violation of NPOV and not read the sources.

As a scholar, it is important to read sources without any bias. I may not have extensive theology, as I am not a theologian, but I am a scholar, so it really bugs me when people add their bias:

  1. "Humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, made of clear blue lapis-lazuli"
    • First this is a problem, I mean have you read Exodus? This fails to pass WP:V at the very least
    • The quote "Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky"
  2. "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment"
    • This is borderline NPOV
    • Furthermore, how does this belong in the cultural background section?
  3. "a flat earth centered on Jerusalem in the middle,"
    • Let's read the source: "The ancient Israelites imagined the universe as a tripartite structure: heaven or sky above, earth in the middle, and netherworld below." [1]
    • Nowhere does this assert a flat earth
    • This is also known as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is not allowed on Wikipedia
  4. Dr. Pennington, great guy by the way, would be sorely disappointed in his source.
    • I added a further summary referenced [2]
    • "Heaven in the a reference to the dwelling place of God" (this completely is gone, but is in my edit)
    • I literally quote Dr. Pennington "Heaven is referred to as the "dwelling place of God"."
    • I also expand with "Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry"
      • This is seen to quote Pennington: "Failure to maintain this distinction by worshipping the created...was strictly forbidden"
  5. Lastly is my entire section on non-Biblical sources
    • Since this is an article on the Biblical ascension, I would want to differentiate to readers what is Biblical and what is not, we should not mix sources together or risk WP:OR
    • I would refer you to the entire section written in Freedman's text here: [3]
    • Not only is there a blatant disregard for what he wrote, he makes a clear differentiation between what is and what isn't in the Bible. Not only this, but for example readers would like to know where the Book of Moses is in, I would refer them to the Book of Moses article and ascribe it to the LDS canon

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dr. Ryan E.: If you have a problem with that particular source, find another source, e.g. search Wikipedia articles about biblical cosmology or flat Earth. Everybody knows that the worldview of the Bible was flat Earth, this is a common place in academic scholarship and it is not our task to right great wrongs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You claimed in your edit summary the discussion was closed. I saw no evidence of that and on that basis I reverted you. It wasn't a judgement on the content, it was a judgement on your rationale. All of the above belongs on the article talk page, not here. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant to add that 76 edits is simply not enough time to understand NPOV. I also find your user page condescending - and confusing because it seems to suggest that only new editors really understand our policies. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Moving this to talk page. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Interviews[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interviews. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request[edit]

Can you please revdel this IP's contributions. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source(s)?[edit]

  • Pierre Lartigue, Rose Sélavy et caetera, University of Michigan, Le Passage, 2004.
  • Judith Housez, Marcel Duchamp: biographie, Grasset, 2006. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: hard to say, especially as I don't know what they are for. Read these in Chrome as it translates well.[4][5]Doug Weller talk 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was checking sources by a "new user" when an more established editor used these two sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

edits on Bhagavad Gita[edit]

Thank you, Doug, for reverting my edits on the Bhagavad Gita article and alerting me to the appropriate guidelines, specifically the need to cite sources appropriately. I'm a newbie here and grateful for the guidance. I have written multiple articles in print encyclopedias by invitation, but I'm just learning the ropes here. In this case I was writing from memory without access to my sources, and since I was dealing with some very basic concepts that I thought were commonly known about the subject at hand, I (carelessly and mistakenly) assumed I could come back later and fill in source material as necessary. Now I know better, and I have reinserted my edits along with the appropriate citations. If I'm still missing something, please help me by pointing it out. OneManOfScience (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much question how can i became a an administrator like you in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRV7875640 (talkcontribs) 08:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)