User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doug Weller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

I place on record my strongest objections to:

1. Your continuous, blatant, politically motivated edits at Arthur Kemp, in which you post up all manner of completely unsubstantiated allegations, and then deliberately delete any evidence--backed up by solid documentary and referenced sources, which completely refute the allegations you have posted up.

2. Your continuous abuse as an administrator in getting me blocked whenever I correct any of your blatantly biased edits.

3. Your unfounded lie that I then tried to abuse the system by logging in from another IP address. You have absolutely no evidence to prove this allegation which you have deliberately put up on my profile page in an attempt to damage my standing on Wikipedia.

In a nutshell, you are a disgrace to the standards of Wikipedia, and I am giving you formal notice that I am reporting you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFallenCrowd (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2014‎

Hey, Doug. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lies.2C_Bias_and_Abuse_of_Position:_User_DougWeller. *sigh* Location (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Might you revisit your opinion about whether a living person is a better source for his own political beliefs or whether a political source is a better source for categorizing that living person's political beliefs? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added the references as requested to the page concerning the Battalion. Please confirm that it meets the Wikipedia requirements or instruct further to complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritEko (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

i reword the news of 2014 event in Isis and dont copy it if you comapre it..its source is authentic namely al arabiyyah..--m,sharaf (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

when I refrerred to the page it was no problem. even many news agencies covered this news.if you google it you can find them easily. both al arabiyyah and Daily mail existed here:

• http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/08/14/Pro-ISIS-leaflets-target-shoppers-on-London-s-Oxford-St-.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723703/The-dawn-new-era-begun-ISIS-supporters-hand-leaflets-Oxford-Street-encouraging-people-newly-proclaimed-Islamic-State.html

I dint know how you cant find them.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

m,sharaf It all depends on the search terms. I've posted to the talk page stating I've found some now. But your date was wrong and your edit was copyvio. And there are far better sources than the Daily Mail. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller , this news dated in 14th of August namely the very date I mention it. there is no copyvio because I reword it other way. where is the problem. I Didn't mention the news just the same as source. I dint think that if we mention daily mail as source then it was wrong..there is difference between it is wrong and it is better, as to latter there is no problem.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

which text do you mean I have to copy?--m,sharaf (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this website be considered a reliable source?[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: No, it's user generated. Nice that they are doing this but not for Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lorenzo de' Medici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin Maxwell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked Bbb23 a few days ago here [2] about how long a "citation needed" tag should be left in place before removing it along with the text (if no citation has been provided in that time) but he has not answered. Can I have some guidance, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Guidance is at WP:NOCITE. What a "reasonable time" is will vary according to the circumstances. 24 hours would rarely be reasonable although there could be times when it is, eg if the editor who added the text added it very recently and is very actively editing the article - you could then even go to their talk page about it. There can be no hard and fast rule about this. I normally leave a few weeks but not always. Always try to find a source of course. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I figured a block was a step up from that. And a block does not exclude a topic ban being imposed if he comes back. Is a clarification needed? -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. A block would be because the behavior was unacceptable, a ban because we don't think he can edit that article constructively. At worst it should be something about the topic ban to be imposed if the same behavior continues. But blocks and bans aren't exclusive. By the way, are you still semi-retired? Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. I guess I will never get the hang of this power. As for my semi-retirement, I'm trying hard for that, but between a slow-down at work (& concern about other things affecting the future of Wikipedia), I'm getting dragged back in. Maybe someone should demand I give up my often misapplied Admin bit, which might goad me into trying even harder. ;-) llywrch (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Llywrch: It would be nice if you could amend your closure with a statement regarding the topic ban. Cheers! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing to my notice Timeline of human prehistory and Timeline of computing hardware 2400 BC–1949. I removed mentions of the Lembobo bone added referenced information about two notched rib pieces dated to 80,000 BP found in the Apollo 11 Cave (and added the information to that article). I also suitably modified mention of the Lembobo bone in History of mathematics.Neurolinguist (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My first interaction with this user was this and it was needlessly rough and abusive considering AGF and how polite I was. I recently put up a notice and request on Worldedixor's talk page which he removed without comment here. When I last left off editing this page over a month ago there was a wonderful sense of cooperation between editors. Now there's needless bickering and edit warring. I think this user needs to be page/topic banned. ~Technophant (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :)

I can promise you that from now on there will be no more copyvio or bare urls. From now on i will make sure to follow Wikipedia rules. I know this is not the place to bring it up, but i need so make it clear that i am disabled and therefore i have difficulties when it comes to do the same thing as "normal" people.

Editing on Wikipedia is one of the things that brings joy to my life, i feel that i can contribute i some small way to the society. So when i edit in Wikipedia it takes a lot of strenght and therefore i have a tendency to copyvio or make bare urls because i will take me very long time to write the edit i my own words. But from now on i will only make edits with the help from one of my family members so it will be done correctly. i promise to go back in my edits and remove copyvio and write the articles in my own words. I also promise to remove bare urls and make sure that the correct information about the linked page. This will take some time but slowly i will make it correct. Have a nice day. :) Lactasamir (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller :) is it ok if i would like to begin working on a new version of the article Danube Valley Cultures now? you wrote on my talk page that if i would i could do it here. this temporary page. There will be no copyvio or bare urls. Have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Springer would be too happy with me sending out free material from the Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy. But as it happens, I've been putting material from the Handbook into some Wikipedia articles. Carahunge was on my to do list so I'll look at it soon. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Simon Mol may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• HIV positive, and woe betide anyone who dares to unravel the myth being put in place."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Simon Mol|title=Son of Efasamoto: I Stand Accused|url=http://www.simonmol.com/2006/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are part of a cabal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, sometimes lengthy ranting accusations of abuse are themselves a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to say it was not any personnal work; it were only exerpts written in a simple english of the Auraicept. I didn't rewrite the phrase I just made the link to an accepted wikipedia page (found later) wich says exactly the same with references. YS,

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.202.40 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lovely case of longstanding animosity at the above page for some time now, in large part to the lack of overview material on the firm itself, and I get the impression that some of the stabby things owned by some of those involved are being prepared for the performance of another homage to splatterpunk shortly. I could take this to the Extant Organizations noticeboard, but I personally think there are some POV type issues involved that might merit review. Would you be interested? John Carter (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What have I done wrong? I didn't create or touch that entry in the timeline and only saw the redlink about an hour ago, hence my TP post. I didn't know it was not permitted to mention a name that had already appeared in a Wikipedia article. I see now the name has been redacted in the timeline and that on the "Revision history" page my own and other entries have been scored out. I have not been contacted by anyone about this yet, although the cryptic message from the anonymous user on the Talk page here seems to imply that I will be. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just remembered, I did remove some commas around the name in the timeline entry, but that was some time before the redlink appeared.. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 you haven't done anything wrong. I was simply removing any mention of the name. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what has happened now and the reason for all the changes. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The name which I presume was the target of your administrative action is still visible on the 11:51, 4 September 2014‎ version of the talk page. Just FYI. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, the edit warring at Historicity of Jesus and the rather off-topic dismissing of any disagreeing parties by one editor on the talk page when they disagree with his recent attempt to redefine the article seems problematic.I have found only one recent reference source using the word "historicity" in relation to Jesus, in a subarticle of Jesus in the Anchor Bible Dictionary which I have transcribed and have forwarded to some .Most importantly, maybe, there's been some discussion to move the article to "Historical existence of Jesus" or some similarly less ambiguous title. I have said I intend to open an RfC on this matter next week, but would welcome any earlier input, perhaps particularly about changing the title as an alternative. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm having severe TL;DR issues on the talk page but I gather that there's a campaign to suppress Ehrman's assessment without introducing contrary testimony. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that maybe a more specific answer might be that someone has a rather tunnel-vision focus on one definition of "historicity," regarding the philosophical question of observer bias, and seems perhaps unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the term is SFAIK more frequently and notably used like it is in the ABD to refer to the question regarding the historical existence of Jesus. The latter is clearly notable while the first has yet to clearly be demonstrated as such. The combination of the current title and the undemonstrated separate notability of the philosophical historicity of Jesus seems to have prompted a hostile topical takeover attempt. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we allow editors to use, "Penny cyclopaedia, Vol. 18, p. 198. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. (1840)" as in this case?[3] Are these "journals" reliable? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Ok I'll never change name of any page again (Lingam - Shiva Lingam) But "Lingam" name is wrong, this is a hindi sentence "Lingam" Meaning is "Gender or Dick". Real Name is Shiva Ling Or "Shiva Lingam" Meaning is Shiva's Pole Or Shiva's Mass. So please change the name of this article because this is very important part of our religion. ~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

One editor User:Bladesmulti reverted me for content. The content misunderstanding appears substantially resolved between us through "talk". The 2nd editor User:PhilKnight mistakenly reverted me, and it was resolved between us through "talk".

I would have taken it to the article talk page under WP:BRD had the reverter Bladesmulti complied with the guideline's 2nd limb - "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". As this is a behaviorial dispute rather than a content dispute, no point is served taking it to the article talk page.

If you are competent to correct the content of this article please do so. As an administrator of Wikipedia please be informed that the present article text is grossly disparaging to the Hindu deity described, and is an insult to Indians generally and Hindus / Sikhs specifically. Lindashiers (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I had informed blocking admin Vsmith about it. This page may require protection. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Buddhakahika/User:Maleabroad is active again as user Yoddhānāth. Assuming you haven't washed your hands off the whole subject area, can you block/revert/delete/spi etc? @SpacemanSpiff: is most familiar with with puppetmaster, but he doesn't seem to be active at the moment. Pinging @Sitush: and @RegentsPark: too, who I think have come across some previous socks and may recognize the quacking. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at the SPI and have reverted/CSD'd the new creations. This person is a bloody nuisance. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush, Doug and Blades! And "bloody nuisance" is just about right. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your references in your talk. I now understand that it's difficult for Wikipedia to verify my edits as only one single page has quite some details about college but as you didn't see that I created the new page because the name of the previous page which was maintained by some author was to short. I am not promoting my Facebook page neither I am asking anyone in the article to like my page. I am just giving them a somewhat called website instead of the expired website in the previous page so if people mainly students have some queries they can be answered. You guys basically dint get the difference as you are not locals. I know that I deleted and redirected the whole page (deletion was a mistake, redirection not). If you visit the Facebook page mentioned on the page you would see that I am active on my page. I can't add all references at once due to unmentioned problems. I can only add references 2 or 3 at a time. I am not asking you to unblock me from editing that page but I am asking you to please remove the redirection from my page and allow me to edit my own page. Don't worry I am still learning Wikipedia so, it going to take me some time to learn cites, etc. Thank you. ZaeemAkhtr (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I can provide you some links which might convince you. So, how can I provide you the links? Perhaps email?

You're welcome. I'm the one who made the errors in the first place Cheers. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I blocked that user based on their contributions and only then did I see your note; I apologize for overlooking that. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you look at this ? An ip vandal (185.34...) deleted the sourced content and added his POV. lt would be nice if you add the page to your watchlist for a while. Because it seems that he is going to involve in an edit-war. 149.140.83.29 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Is there any chance you could please semi-protect Trial of Oscar Pistorius, Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp for 48 hours? We are being inundated with people trying to add an unsourced verdict before the judge has even finished delivering it (resumes tomorrow). Nothing is official yet. I would ask at the protection noticeboard or BLPN but I think it would take too long due to backlogs. HelenOnline 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree with my cut and paste approach to making the lede longer, but I think that the lede does not adequately summarize all the key points and issues raised in the article. I will try some higher-level summaries of the content, and you can let me know what you think.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OnBeyondZebrax, how about giving examples on the talk page first? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

An example has been put on the talk page :)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Orientated does sound odd and/or pretentious to these American ears. I didn't know it was considered preferred usage in Britain. This page: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/orientate indicates its likely a back-formation from 'orientation'. The odd thing is, there were a few other uses of the word on the same page, and all others were 'oriented'. Another point to consider is if you follow conventions of latin word formation (If I understand correctly, not that I'm an expert) then that would favor 'oriented'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFetko (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds weird to these American ears also. I hadn't noticed that both were used, we should I guess use whatever came first as both are used in the UK I think. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who studies orientations of historic and prehistoric structures, I find the usage "orientated" to be rare. Google NGram viewer confirms this for both US and UK usage. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Orientate" has been slowly going out of use here in Britain for at least a decade, if not longer. I haven't heard it in a long time. It is probably still used in literary or more formal language, but I would say in colloquial speech it is used very rarely if at all now. On the following convention point, English doesn't really follow rules - it is a very pragmatic language that has a life of its own, which can go off in all directions, unlike French, for example, which still suffers from being hidebound by the strict grammarians of the French Academy who are keen to preserve the language rather than let it develop naturally! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I've just inserted my 'statement', before your recent post on UrbanVillager v Bobrayner & Pincrete, I did so as I thought 'the condemned man' had the right to speak first.

On a related issue, Kepkke, has also mysteriously turned up for the first time today at The Weight of Chains 1, to insert the exact same review, with the exact same justification as AnnOtherEditor … … ps the only reason that The Weight of Chains 2 is not a total copyvio, is I removed some of the more 'mangled' English yesterday.Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. Within minutes after your remark on uninvolved users, another account popped up out of nowhere and claimed he and I met on one occasion someplace five years ago, though I have no recollection of this user. Deja vu? In your experience as a former Arbcom member, have you ever encountered a process where off-wiki canvassing was established as here? How was the issue dealt with? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I was a Clerk, not a member. Search ANI for off-wiki canvassing - I'm pretty sure we've run into it before, and off-Wiki activities are being discussed currently at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello — I noticed your contributions to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization about the ongoing drama over Category:Antisemitism. I'm not a terribly experienced editor, so might I ask you for a reality check here? This looks to me very much like an editor who tried changing some category text, and was reverted; who opened an RFC in an attempt to make that change, only to see a conclusion against him; and who, in a self-appointed crusade to make a POINT, is now using disruptive and confrontational tactics, and blaming everyone else for his actions. He has openly and repeatedly threatened to depopulate entire categories which have never been proposed for deletion. Having been sanctioned before, he has chosen now to pressure other editors to take up his cause. So my question today is, am I over-reacting? Is this just another detail of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, something I didn't notice before? Or is some kind of an imposed brake on this trainwreck really called for, as you suggested here? In case you haven't noticed through other channels, he's started another round of mass category deletions, what he refers to as a “purge”, and he's not limiting himself to Category:Antisemitism and its sub-categories.  Unician ∇  05:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, haven't noticed and apologies for not responding yesterday. Do you want to go to ANI and say he's editing to make a WP:POINT? If you do,I'll back you but I can't right now as I have no time. The RfC decision was a dreadful one, and involved only a handful of editors but is making a major impact. I never dreamed it would pass or I would have made sure it was publicised at Wikiprojects, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Please check the latest edit in the article Cochin Jews. That statement in the source actually talks about Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) from Ethiopia and Bene Israel from western India. Cochin Jews are from southern India. Though the term "Cochini" is shown in the parentheses, it does not say anything specifically about them in that particular statement. Thank you. Jossyys (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Cochini are the Cochin Jews, right? And the abstract clearly says what I quoted, so I don't see the problem. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence in the source says that the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) cluster with the neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and the Bene Israel cluster with the neighbouring autochthonous populations in western India. Since the host population of Cochin Jews is the southern Indian population, saying that the Cochin Jews cluster with the populations in Ethiopia and western India does not make sense. Another point is that there are four groups in the Cochin Jews community. Is there any guarantee that the sample size is adequate to cover all those four groups in order to make a blanket statement on the entire community? Jossyys (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jossyys You're trying to interpret a source it seems, that's not what we do. We just report as accurately as we can what they say. Now if you think it fails our criteria of reliability at WP:RS you can ask at WP:RSN if others agree, but it's not up to us to challenge a source unless we think it fails those criteria. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've read that user problems are not to be discussed on article talk pages, however it seems that some of that is unavoidable. I've started a RFC/U here. I've never started one of these before. Is it ok to fill one out as a partner or team, or is that considered a lynch mob action? Can I ask you for advice on this?~Technophant (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the first lines in the boilerplate says "This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment" so I guess that answers my question. This user is really on a tear. From what I see RFC/U is a slow process. Perhaps AN/I is more appropriate? Also, is announcing an ANI or RFC/U on an article talk page inappropriate? I think I read that it was. It's ok to go to affected users and announce to them with a link, right?~Technophant (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant I see you've started one, but you haven't quite got it right in that the 2 of you @P123ct1: need to sign as certifiers and show how you've tried to resolve the issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 which is recent and had 2 Admins as certifier - although looking again, they didn't start it, a sock did! Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic. I'll endorse it later. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have signed it (I think as a "certifier") and I have added some links showing my attempts to resolve the issue, but perhaps not enough. Btw, this RFC/U was Technophant's idea, not one that we have ever discussed. The first I heard of it was the day before yesterday and it looked like a good idea, as there is now so much distracting disruption on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I moved my attempt to resolve to the correct section.~Technophant (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I see that you've been an admin for a long time. Is it appropriate to announce the RFC/U on the ISIL talk page, or should it only be done on user talk pages?~Technophant (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

TechnophantI'm really not sure, you can ask at the RfC/U talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be contained as far as possible, so I think announcing it on the Talk page would not be a good idea. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is somewhat urgent, and I'll be around for a bit, so please let me know if the e-mail message didn't reach you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the message bounced. I've tried again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid this problem won't go away. The question whether certain sources can be used to support the statement that Israel has designated ISIS as a terrorist organization was never resolved in the discussion above. No document of the type found for other countries which have done this has been produced.

The original source provided by the editor was this, but this refers to "unlawful", not "terrorist". (I won't go into the other sources editors came up with as they were clearly not acceptable, as being in Arabic or Hebrew without translation, or only talking of ISIS as a terrorist organization. There was much debate about whether "unlawful" meant "terrorist", but the document provided to support the notion that it did was misunderstood by editors).

The source that comes closest to being acceptable is this one here, but I don't think it can be used because it is only a second-hand report. The source is from this website. My question is: do you think this last document can be used as proof?

I ask because the discussion has completely stalled and no other suitable sources have been provided. In the meantime I have reverted the edit which put Israel in the designation box in section 13 until this matter could be resolved. I have been accused of reverting against consensus, but there never was any, as I voiced an objection quite early on. You will probably remember the trouble we had finding a document to support a United Nations designation of terrorist for ISIS, and this seems a similar situation. Can you help out with this, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember now you used that board for the United Nations quandary. I will remember it in future. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Dougweller/Archive_35#ISIS. The person in question has now been murdered and it is being widely covered by the media. So should not the oversighting of revisions including his name now be reversed? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs:That's up to Oversight, I assume they will take some action. I can't undo anything they do. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actively editing on ISIS and other subjects having acknowledged/ignored SPI. Is SPI even needed? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I'd rather let someone else deal with this one. Everything is too stale for CU but they might check for sleepers if there's a block. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The last sock was only a few weeks ago, so shouldn't be stale, but no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it was decided to split this section to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn instead of Al Qaeda in Iraq, I think it would be helpful to move the talk page history, and maybe also the revision history from AQI to the new article. I know this takes sysop powers. Could you do this, or is it not wise to do?~Technophant (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I manually copied over the old talk page contents. They should get archived automatically soon. There's probably no need to do anything besides the task list I've posted to both talk pages.~Technophant (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia is locked. It should be rd to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn.~Technophant (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you saw it, if you are going to be the closer. I want to know if it's ok for Sitush to engage in that behavior and if so if it's ok for me. I also would like to know what diffs show I've engaged in any behavior against individuals as bad as his. It's just more accusations without proof. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No way am I closing that. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that it's become clear Sitush started that bio to piss me off and start a brouhaha to force GGTF to arbitration.... What a little $*%&$^. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I was starting to expand the list of longuest wooden sailing vessels, and you reverted my changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships

The reason was "31m is not that long". But I don't see where the limit would be. I think it's relevant to include more ships, even if they are not that big, if they are still operational. Nowadays there are less and less wooden tall ships, and I think it's remarkable that some are still sailing around.

In any case, and whatever your final choice is, thanks for keeping Wikipedia nice and clean.

Best Regards, Alfonso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonso Garzon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alfonso Garzon, thanks for the compliment and the polite response. I've started a discussion at Talk:List of longest wooden ships#How long does a ship have to be to be on this list? - chime in. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as a piece of string? - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we get this editor blocked per WP:NOTHERE? Their ~160 edits from 30 September 2010 till 13 September 2014 consist in blind substitutions of the word "god" with the word "devi" and blind substitutions of the phrase "Hindu mythology" with the word "Hindu theology" in blatant violation of WP:NOR and MOS:QUOTE. Any attempt at communicating with them (User talk:Amanhanda) ended nowhere. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, just too busy and lost track. However I did take a quick look yesterday snd I don't know that I can issue a block right now. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand. In any case, all their edits have been and have to be reverted which is time-consuming for many editors (User:Sitush, User:Richard BB, User:Aoidh) including myself. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll see how he responds to my post to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Now this one [4] is almost certainly Lokalkosmopolit. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit was extremely suspicious. And what could be worse in an encyclopedia than making a small yet necessary clarification of a Gaullist party's ideology? Chop off his head!--Advice Polack (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about your edit, it was inaccurate. Hardly a clarification. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol, you have some other explanation for the party's participation in the Republican Front (France), a coalition of centre-left parties? :) Advice Polack (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, you added "left-wing"[5] which I changed to "centre-left". So I have no idea what you mean. Dougweller (talk)

Well done to Volunteer Marek. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit, sock blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This entry has been reinserted in List of founders of religious traditions by an anonymous IP. For details, see talk page. Could you please take appropriate action? Thank you! Jpacobb (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute the number of 100,000 Japanese-American deportees during WWII. It's that David M. Kennedy's book, Freedom From Fear, never mentions a number. Kennedy addresses the issue on pages 748 to 760. He mentions there were 120,000 Japanese-Americans living in the continental U.S., and he mentions 15,000 voluntary removals in the early days of the deportation effort. But at no point does he ever say how many total internees there were. This total number of 100,000 needs a separate citation. Tossing in the 100,000 number implies that Kennedy uses that number, and he never supplies it. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey admin, thanks for your prompt feedback. But I have a few points to share:

1) Hinduism is one of the oldest of world religions, and purans are the chronicles that

  Form the very foundations of te religion. Visit any of the museums preserving these scriptures and     you'll  know that the question of any hindh scripture being written later than Genesis, DOESN'T ARISE.

2) THE MATSYA PURANA clearly states the story which bears great similarities with that of Noah's arc. Infact i came across another article on wikipedia that says that a Sumerian scripture also mentions the same story.

So you see that there is a huge possibikity that all world religions somewhere have a common source, and that was what i wanted people to know. When Matsya Purana and Manu articles refer Noah, i think its completely fair rhat articles on Noah refer to the former.

Thank you. Your reply awaited

Sssxccal (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) SSsxccal,kolkata

Ignoring the fundamentalist claims, we need secondary sources, and we only paraphrase what they explicitly state. We do not [[WP:OR|draw conclusions from primary sources that are not explicitly stated.

Oh, heck, I just can't let it go -- Matsya Purana was written in the third century AD at earliest (possibly the sixth century), at least eight centuries after the latest date for Genesis's composition. The Babylonian version dates to 1500 years before the Matsya Purana, and the Sumerian version at least another 1000 years before that. To pretend that the Matsya Purana is the foundation of the story is intellectually dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travis_Daily
The article you asked me to read supports my request for citations. Read the contention WP:LEADCITE carefully.
Travis Daily (talk, edits) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Which, as Maunus has told you, does not justify a general citation needed tag. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To quote WP:LEADCITE: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads". The title of the page in question contains no citations and is of obvious controversy. The general citation tag is one thing that I know of which asks for citations, so I used it. Maunus has decided to be passive-aggressive and recommended I add the citation need tag to statements which citation is needed. I will. Travis Daily (talk, edits) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. A newly registered account has been going around pasting largely off-topic material to some of the Somali armed forces-related pages in question [6]. For instance, on the History of Uganda page, he/she added material on the new Operation Indian Ocean, although the mission has not shaped Uganda's history, is not taking place in Uganda, nor is it being led by the Ugandan military. This may or may not be a coincidence, but I wanted to bring it to your attention anyway given the whole situation. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that you opened the ANI with the best/most honourable of intentions but I'm afraid that some of the responses are most likely to convince him never to return, however that thread is closed. This whole episode is very dispiriting, from beginning to end. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa , yeah. I regret it now. Really dispiriting. I'm not sure how I'm going to respond. Probably by doing things that I enjoy more and letting a lot of the stuff I do to prevent vandalism, etc go to pot. To many editors just don't care. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But it did result in an unblock, so that's good. Dougweller (talk)

True. And maybe he'll come back, having benefited from a short break. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we were just having fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenzana (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A look at the edits of this editor appear to be disruptive(blanket reverts, no explanation in edit summary). Would you be interested in checking?[7] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, this editor has already received multiple warnings for trolling and harassment. He blanked them all early this morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: @Ad Orientem: - I've told him I will block him if he continues. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have had to remove an edit from the section 14 "Designation as a terrorist organization" infobox to the Lead, as the country in question has not formally designated ISIS as a terrorist organization, it has simply voiced its opposition to it. (Editors keep making this mistake!) Does what I have done count as a revert? I wouldn't have thought so, as I haven't removed their edit completely. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: It's a revert. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a growing element in Wiki that prefers to use the politically neutral BCE/CE date format but in the case of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language

I could not find any consensus to change the original authors use of BC/AD date format, hence the reason why I believe it should remain so. Please can you identify the consensus opinion on this page because I do not feel there is a violation as you stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.110.35 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking again I can find that this was changed to CE only a couple of months ago, so I agree with you. If it had been changed several years ago, even without conensus, that would be the established version as first author isn't the criterion and it would need discussion to change. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harvey Spencer Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lemurians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions. I didn't know that it was a copyright violation, because the web-site is mentioned in other articles. (e.g The God Abandons Antony ). There is a REDIRECT page, but nothing is mentioned about the poem in the main page.Jestmoon(talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The link is fine, but copying the whole poem isn't. As you may have noticed, his article had another poem - sometime in 2010 someone substituted the whole page for the excerpt that I've replaced it with. I think that something should be in his page about both of these poems and both should be redirects - makes it easier for someone to learn about his poetry and not have to go from page to page. Do you want me to do that or will you? I probably can't do it until Friday. Dougweller (talk)

The article about Raum and the Sphinx which was removed for copyright issues was taken from an ebook: "This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org." link to ebook: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40686/40686-h/40686-h.htm - 11r010fkme (username) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11r010fkme (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Still plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have settled down, but will do if anything happens. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For general admin-related work and for diligence in patrolling and maintaining various important articles (especially judging from my watchlist). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your response at DRN, but if I change revision on the disputed article, the user will just revert again without starting discussion after the block is over. Can you monitor the article, my talk page, and the user as well? I feel this isn't over, but thanks for your assistants. -- Cheeers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Hafspajen (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I'm just pinging you as an admin to see if you'd kindly keep an eye on Navicular syndrome. Someone with a single-purpose account keeps trying to add info on a folk remedy to the article, cited to another wikipedia article, and I'm tired of reverting - it's a slo-motion edit war. Discussion has been initiated by me at the talk page, and I cautioned the user, but I feel is time for a third party with tools to just watchlist the thing. As always, I am open to trout-slapping if I get too pissy about these sorts of edits. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Dougweller but seeing how you are (unfortunately) acquainted with this editor's behaviour I thought I might bring this up to you. I'm not particularly offended but he does show a clear trend of WP:NOTHERE. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be watching my talk page but I thought I would place my comment here to be sure you see it. I took a brief look at a few of those sites. At least one has a photo of the 2014 stone so the existence of the stone set into the monument is true. The whole thing is rather strange. My guess is that the monument is either the work of some person or group who wished to draw attention either to their personal philosophy or to the local area or both. Conspiracy theorists have a field day with it - adding to the publicity. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller,

Not sure what your interest is in the Gospel of Judas, where you removed some comments of mine made there a year or so ago, but I want to revisit this interesting discovery with others who are similarly interested. I have time now that I retired (yea!)... I saw on your site, I think, that you say, "God made me an atheist". Is this going to make it difficult to sustain comments that presuppose such an entity's existence? Tell me more about yourself. What I posted probably deserved to be removed, as it was perhaps not sufficiently well-sourced. But I have a lot to say about this subject, and I want to contribute what I know from my extensive reading on Mysticism and Gnosticism. I am self-published. I know - it isn't permissible. I do, however, know considerably more about the essential truths of Gnosticism than any of the so-called experts who are regularly quoted on Wiki with impunity. All these scholars are just plain wrong in what they say about the Gospel of Judas because they do not understand it. My spiritual Master, Charan Singh (1918-1990), were he alive today, could add much to this discussion. He was published on broader allied subjects by his supporting organization's publishing facility (the Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and Science of the Soul Research Center), and has world-wide distribution through their websites. These books can be sources for Wiki articles, can they not? What resources are available for sharing personal insights on Wiki topics such as this? It is possible to know things but not be "peer-reviewed". www.rssb.org http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/ Sahansdal (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor changes the meaning of a sentence in the lead of the Armenian language article to reflect the opposite of what the body of the article clearly states.[8]

From, "Its vocabulary has been heavily influenced by Western Middle Iranian languages, particularly Parthian, and to a lesser extent by Greek, Latin, Old French, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and other languages throughout its history."
to, "Its vocabulary has heavily influenced Western Middle Iranian languages, particularly Parthian, and to a lesser extent Greek, Latin, Old French, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and other languages throughout its history."

Whereas, according the the body of the article, "The classical language imported numerous words from Middle Iranian languages, primarily Parthian, and contains smaller inventories of borrowings from Greek, Syriac, Latin, and autochthonous languages such as Urartian. Middle Armenian (11th–15th centuries AD) incorporated further loans from Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Latin, and the modern dialects took in hundreds of additional words from Modern Turkish and Persian. Therefore, determining the historical evolution of Armenian is particularly difficult because Armenian borrowed many words from Parthian and Persian (both Iranian languages) as well as from Greek."

This type of "editing" is worse than disruptive, it is deceptive. Changing the wording of an article to suit a particular editor's opinion/view. I have reverted the edit, but doubt that user:Steverci will use the talk page, since he does not use edit summaries to explain his edits.[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Siddheart is using a new sock, read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion_on_B._R._Ambedkar. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

noted and recorded by Ethiopian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.138.94 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind giving your two cents in this discussion? AcidSnow (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For a quick rundown of what's happening, see here.

Please take a look at the edits (especially comments) by:

• WPcorrector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are repeatedly violating WP:TALK on two articles which are both covered by ArbCom sanctions: Climate change denial and Russell Blaylock (an anti vaccine doctor who pushes other fringe views). -- Brangifer (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Except I didn't "push" any "fringe" views. The dangers of vaccines are recognized by everyone. The fact that the flu vaccine is by far the least effective vaccine is recognized by everyone. The fact that climate science cannot explain the "pause" is recognized by everyone.

I don't understand what the talk page is about if discussing article content is disallowed. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You were expressing your own POV on both talk pages, and not suggesting any improvements using RS. (In both cases you also happen to be very wrong, so you really are pushing fringe and unscientific POV in both cases.) When your comments were removed by multiple editors, with explanation that you were violating WP:TALK, you restored them. You should have read TALK and followed it. You also ignored (and deleted some) warnings and advice on your talk page, and then got nasty. That's not good. This is not a normal situation where disagreement gets discussed for long periods of time. ArbCom sanctions come down pretty quickly and hard. We don't need disruption, especially on those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr. dougwell, Noticed you edited out my entries on wikipedia centuries. Understand this was probably because did not quote sources for each entry. Since these sources are lumped together at the end of my 365 page color-coded 13.8B-1500AD timeline it is hard do seperate individual entries. Timeline covers geology/animal & human evolution/human technology from flint blades to pocketwatches. Will gladly make a free gift of this timeline to wikipedia. Just give me a website to up-load timeline & you can decide if its of any value to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.15.159 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug, Hi. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User:PacificWarrior101, had posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity, and to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice will be much appreciated by you.Davidbena (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry for replying late as I became very busy and couldn't provide the link to verify the name. Coming back to topic I have provided a link of a website which is managed and maintained by the original members of the Board Of Intermediate Education Karachi of Government Of Pakistan which controls the D. J. Science College. If you search on the given link you find that D. J. Science College is originally written as D. J. Sindh Govt. Science College

Verification Link http://www.biek.edu.pk/gmaleCol.asp ZaeemAkhtr (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please teach this IP user how to behave on Wikipedia. He just reverts other user's edits and accuses I and another user to be a sock of a blocked user. I'm really tired of discussing with him. I also reported this situaton to two other administrators. Keivan.f^Talk 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Brianmathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from a block, and the first thing he did was a repetition of what he was blocked for. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a filing at EWNB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@MrBill3: Good work, he's gone for good. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I just wanted to mention that given your block of Arvindnirvana (talk · contribs) was for 3RR it seems a little controversial (due to INVOLVED) as you were one of the editors reverting their edits on the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Asked for a review at ANI and explained why I blocked - should have made it clearer this appears to be a sock. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as per the Talk page, I just nominated this page for deletion. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are some personal details in this section above that you may wish to redact per policy. Britmax (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What type of information could that have been, and which policy? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:The name and email address and phone number of an IP who's been adding to a timeline and wanted to discuss it with me, offering me a copy of his timeline. The problem is that it has no sources. He was adding stuff to prehistoric century articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I missed that, which is just as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The War on terror revert you just made is not questionable...but I can't find sourcing for any of that paragraph in the inline citation which appears to aggregate content from other articles. Were you able to find it? Also, what is your opinion of icasualties.org as a RS?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller didn't look to be honest, replied at RSN with details saying yes. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my quotation from Exodus from the Book of Mormon? How could you say it was not relevant? Thepasta (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Replied above where editor also asked. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam. If needed for research etc. Drop a note on my talk. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 Thanks, and let me know if you need Jstor. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I use the three free at a time on JSTOR for the most part but if something comes up I will be in touch, thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your name suggests you are non-Indian and non-Hindu. You should know about the caste-system of Hinduism , then you must have restored the contents about two Odia Hindu saints who belong to Karan-subcaste. For your kind information , please visit Odisha and examine whether Karans are Dalits or not. If you do this again, you are doing 'Vandalism' in the name of Castes.

Karans belong to higher castes and are not Shudras. Karans are next to Brahmins and are socially and economically well-off people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitthalns (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please include the following images within the article of Greene's Tutorial College Oxford? There's an picture of the school building and another of the college's emblem: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTL7MTNAtVNJFC6_aSe119W4vG745lSTIwBVwXTuV8NxCX4mH3Pnw https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrToVcR6nXjwpMv_ENfN2fnAQCQ1xDsCJ2wqlnMkai71b4_-9l — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.217.49 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an image person, sorry. I think the emblem could be uploaded as Fair use, but I also think it's too poor an image. Not sure about the building. Sorry. Take a look at Wikipedia:Images or better yet ask at the WP:Help desk. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi sorry to bother you with this. But ElNiñoMonstruo is back again wanting to start an edit war again. Now reverted my edits on each item that I edit, reverted my edits without giving any reason or a valid reason. As it has done in the following articles: Ikaw Lamang, Pure Love (TV series)‎, List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN‎ and Hawak Kamay (TV series)‎. A moment ago, he had vandalized is template and his only answer was: "Please delete this unnecessary template." I have tried to ask the user to please start a new edit war on all items I mentioned. But I do not think this person ignore me and talk to him is almost impossible. Here I give a proof of what I say [10]. This user is impossible to reach an agreement or try to talk to the not interested in reaching any agreement.--McVeigh (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ElNiñoMonstruo, DON'T remove messages here! diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug.

I received an email from you today regarding the edits that I did on the article [l Badr]. You deleted my edits and you said they may be/were a conflict of interest. It is true that I edited the wiki page and I am the author of the paper linked; my article on this subject was published in a peer reviewed journal (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament), and I am working on this topic for my thesis/dissertation. I didn't think that the details I added on the wiki page were unnecessarily biased. Perhaps I shouldn't have linked my academia.edu page, but that could have easily been erased. I didn't say anywhere in the article that the views I was presenting were right or better than the preceding theories; I was adding new evidence. I find it disturbing that you deleted/reverted my edits and did not include me on the people who have advocated for this theory. It seems to me that you have a biased approach to the subject, since the spin of the article is now negative towards the connection of Sinai with Badr. You spend much more time and focus in the article on views that argue against the evidence presented by people such as Beke, Humphreys, and of course you deleted my edits/article dealing with the subject in full. My article and edits to the wiki page also dealt with geological data from Badr, something which many previous studies do not.

Secondly, there are several problems with the article as it now stands: First of all, it's Mount Baghir, not Birghir (as you have now added this to the article). I suggest you also research Jean Koenig more, who is only mentioned in passing in this article. He wrote a book (Le Site all Jaws dans l'ancien pays de Madian) which is cited, but nothing from it is discussed. Again, this article really only presents views against the theory, not for it.

I welcome you to write back.

Best Jacob (Israelite Historian)

--- I noticed a similar pattern regarding this admin's reversion of my religious contributions to an article regarding the Book of Exodus (except I have no conflict of interest). It shouldn't matter whether or not this admin believes in God. What should matter is the truth. So much for transparency. It's really sad that some people live to spread disinformation in the name of truth. Oh and by the way, please don't forget to revert this post.. Thepasta (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor point - the spelling I used was the spelling in the source I gave. The editor who posted the above, IsraeliteHistorian, sorted things out and we have no problems with each other. As for User:Thepasta, the edit I reverted starting " It is worth noting that an alternate translation reads" adding a Joseph Smith translation. Two points - one, we never tell readers what is worth noting. That's original research or editorial comment and not our roles. Secondly, we don't rely on primary sources to add material. If you'd found a source that met our criteria at WP:RS discussing the two translations that might have been useful and acceptable in the article. It's my bad that I didn't explain that to you on your talk page, and for that I apologise. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would apply also - Joseph Smith is pretty fringe so far as Bible articles go. Maybe in an article directly relevant to Mormonism. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you fulfilled my words with your comment about Joseph Smith. Thepasta (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you get this one too? Stopphippo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom Oh there's more, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WindyPegg. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, the user you blocked for 24 hours a few weeks ago: Kanbei85 is back and reverting again on the same article: Biblical manuscript without starting a discussion. My defense towards the edit was and still is violating WP:NOR as it comes from the scholar's personal website. Please resolve this issue this time as permanently --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have posted to PUMP, VRT and FTNB regarding my belief there is a need for COI disclosure on OTRS team edits driven by secret correspondence, please comment if you see fit. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Constitution Party (United States) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Constitution Party''' is a [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] [[Nationalism|nationalist] in the [[United States]].<ref>"Southern Poverty Law Center." Constitution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous things going on at ANI that could use a look. Among them are allegations of sockpuppetry by two parties an editor without evidence, a strange (to me) request directed to AE, and some WP:bludgeoning which has become disruptive. diff I suppose the allegation of "being set up by a group of user accounts working together" could imply tag teaming in addition to the specific accusation of sockpuppetry. Either way, it's casting aspersions and an assumption of bad faith. Ignocrates (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This request is very, very wrong for two reasons. First, user accounts working together does NOT equal sock puppetry! Secondly, to go to an admin, who has had serious issues with an editor and there is bad blood between the two and there is no chance of the admin. being objective and ask him to intervene is a serious Wikipedia violation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First, given your statement "user accounts working together does NOT equal sock puppetry" how do you explain your request for a sockpuppet investigation? diff Second, if you feel an admin "had serious issues with an editor" in the past, you can ask that admin to recuse and refer the matter to another admin. Saying "there is no chance of the admin. being objective" is a personal attack. Why would you attack an admin on their own talk page that isn't even aware of the request yet? There is something "very, very wrong" with your sense of WP:Wikiquette. Please read up on it. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to me, I do not think Doug can be objective. That is not meant as a personal attack. We do have quite a history. I suspect he will agree and recuse himself. In any event I apologize for any misunderstanding. As a token of good faith I have struck the comment you found offensive. Wishing you both the best. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Ret.Prof's comments on EdJohnston's talk page, he struck more of his comments at ANI. There's not a lot more to say here, except that Ret.Prof's actions precipitated an AE investigation, and actions have consequences. I have responded there, and hopefully that's enough to take care of it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have removed this template. At the first place, I thought it was general because admins also do the same work as we do with Twinkle like tagging articles and warning users etc. These are also administrator tasks but I think you are right, this template only belongs to admins. Owais khursheed (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Second last edit on Zo people dates back to 22 June 2014. Today you have imposed full protection. What has happened? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti Sorry - meant to protect Zomi which has been a redirect and protected the article it redirects to in error. Fixed. Thanks. The editor who turned the redirect back into another article on the same people is asking about it at Talk:Zomi. But of course we can only have on article on them. I guess the next thing will be him changing the content. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who put the data on that page and I made a mistake so i removed some of the data--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are proposing to accomplish by blocking any changes to this article for three days. The history page for the article clearly shows editing stopped upon DaltonHird's request at its last edit - despite DaltonHird's prior edit warring - as I respectfully awaited an arbitration which would recognize that its biased edits to the introductory paragraph belonged in the Controversies section if in the article at all.

What are you doing to advance resolution of this dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's probably the twofold purpose of refocusing things on discussion instead of reverting, and letting previously uninvolved editors get involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not clear what else needs to be said by other editors. As an administrator you should ensure the article is impartial and that reported events are weighted appropriately. Clearly the article in its present state gives undue weight to isolated events, criticisms, and news reports that are vastly disproportionate to the overall outstanding reputation and history of this academic institution. By way of comparison, is the famous Naval Academy cheating scandal( http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N24/cheating.24w.html ) prominently featured in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that illustrious institution? Absolutely not, nor should it be. Isolated events will occasionally occur but they are not the defining feature of an academic institution. It is worth mentioning that DaltonHird, the Wikipedia editor whose edit war resulted in your protecting this page (and whose edits remain in the protected version)admittedly has a feminist POV, thus claims the school has "serious social problems resulting in several high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence". These slurs do not belong in the article, especially where there already is a Controversies section repeating them.

Just jumping in here, why not start a section on the article talk page discussion the undue weight in the lead (which I'm inclined to agree with). While Wikipedia is not censored (and the section on controversies should stay), I think the inclusion of these controversies right at the start of the article is not encyclopedic. Seaphoto^Talk 04:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I have no intention of taking legal action. Nor do I know what the affected students or their lawyers may do. I am not one of them. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am new here. And whatever article or edit I do. Is being removed. can you suggest me to any group. In Article Calcutta Leather Complex only one topic was copy paste, and I even mentioned the souce in article. Still instead of helped by other user to make it right. it is being nominated in speedy deletion. It will be very kind of you Sir to help me write my first article.

Thanking You

Your Faithfully Jawaid Alam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawaid1504 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia by removing lies from the Publius Enigma page. I am not in an edit war, the other editors of that page may be. I bet they complained in the first place right ? This is because, given the references I have given, they have run out of options for their objective. I am merely defending the referenced edits I made which accurately represent the truth and history of the story. (Yanickborg (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

Replying on editor's talk page explaining OR, edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hi Dougweller! How are you? And keep up the good work! :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your recent deletion of a full section.

Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!"

Besides the topic in question not being a Biography of a living person; Facts are facts and they are presented neutrally without disparagement to any person mentioned.

If you recommend something an then sell it; that is a factual relationship that was adequately demonstrated within the entry.

Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's Law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors. Editors who cry "BLP!" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply.

Iotablue (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)lotablueIotablue (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Iotablue:Please read the policy you are claiming isn't being violated. It clearly states "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Anyone who inserts this again is liable to be blocked if they've been warned. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. At your convenience could you take a look at the recent editing on Gold bug? Adnarkey‎ has been aggressively editing that article in a manner that clearly is agenda oriented. See his commentary on the talk page. You can also take a look at the discussion on my talk page (which keeps getting modified) and on the talk page of the article where my comment was deleted. I am refraining from further intervention out of deference to 3RR but this is pretty naked POV pushing. I would prefer that this be handled without recourse to the NPOV board or ANI and was hoping you could drop a friendly line to that end. A few other editors and I have spent a lot of time cleaning up some of the articles that have been used to promote gold buggery by the usual suspects and I'd like to maintain a neutral tone. Although I am more used to agenda pushing from the other side, either way it's still a no no. Thanks for your time... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well that was a bit more unpleasant than I was hoping for. I think that for about 30 seconds or so I actually wished I was an Admin. On which note I think I am going to lie down. Thanks for the help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"I understand why you did this but such changes virtually always require discussion, and that has already taken place at Talk:Oriya language#Requested move. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)"

How long are we going to "virtually" discuss about something already ratified by the Indian Government?

'Orissa' IS NOT 'Orissa', it is Odisha and 'Oriya' IS Odia.

I see the "talking" about changing the name to something that is OFFICIALLY correct has been going on for more than a YEAR now.

'Oriya' is incorrect and keeping it as such is injustice and obstruction to truthful knowledge.

How long are we going to "discuss" and when are we actually going to "do?"

Please don't let Wikipedia be as corrupt as I think it is.

Let the people of Odisha have their Justice.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Moved to bottom, per convention, leaving AGF template on user's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight, I can't have abused my power as an Administrator as I've not used it. I've simply reverted you and explained what you need to do if you think the change you want is appropriate. I really don't care what it's called. I think a move request would probably be successful as we already have Odisha. I don't know why you are unwilling to follow normal procedure. You also broke links and as I recall changed the name of a source. That's not constructive. Since you don't seem to want to do this yourself, I've started Talk:Oriya language#Requested moves where you should put your case. Read the earlier move request first and read Talk:Odisha where there was a successful move request. Please be a bit more civil and don't assume that Wikipedia is corrupt just because you were reverted (properly). Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, thank you for submitting a move request on my behalf.

However, your reply 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC), clearly shows you do not demonstrate respectfulness towards humanity. I think your statement "I really don't care what it's called." IS ABSOLUTELY denigrating and degrading. I will believe by "it" you mean the name either 'Oriya' or 'Odia'. I do not know if you were intentionally ambiguous in your usage of the word "it" as to make pretext for escape in later discourse. If you have no regard for a constituent of humanity, then please do not involve yourself with it. Please remember, the people of Odisha have been giving injustice and your attitude of carelessness is inappropriate and unprofessional. Moreover, we fix problems by fixing them, NOT by pointing out other problems. I believe you have made an attempt to point out my faults and attempt to embarrass me publicly. Intriguingly enough, you didn't mention "You also broke links and as I recall changed the name of a source. That's not constructive. " previously. Was that statement out of petty revenge?

May I ask how to be a "bit more civil", you sure seem like the person to know that answer.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

Let the people of Odisha have their Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism--151.46.169.17 (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem North Africa Is A Part Of Africa You People On Wikipedia Have Issues To Work Out ! ! ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfinder1011 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I wasn't aware that the entire African continent consisted of solely West Africa. Oh, wait, it doesn't, there's a North Africa that's actually not the same as West Africa. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Naughty United Nations, putting Western Sahara into North Africa. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Danger danger, OP has "truth" in username... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't we included "usernames with 'Truth' in them" at WP:IU? Is there some sort of drinking game that involves spotting such users? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here with popcorn hoping to read some interesting comments. Can I have my ticket refunded please? ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the attention of Mr. Douglas Weller:

I am unclear as to why you persist in reversing my edits to the 'Popular Culture' section of the Wikipedia article on Hy-Brasil. I only came to know about this mythical island as a result of reading Gerald Killingworth's book of the (almost) same name, "Hy Brazil". Out of a desire to improve the article, I sought to edit it in order to make mention of the very book that had led me there. I provided several citations after your initial reversion (which claimed that no articles existed to corroborate the book's existence) but you reversed my edit a second time. The reason you then gave was that the book was 'self-published' and that this should count against it. But, with respect, may I ask why you adopt such a snooty policy? To be sure, a lot of self-published fiction is dross; but could you, in all good faith, defend the existence of The Eye of Argon ("the apotheosis of bad writing") or Battlefield Earth ("...atrociously written, windy and out of control"), both of which are, nevertheless, published works? Self-publication seems a somewhat arbitrary yardstick to use when determining what does and doesn't count as relevant to Wikipedia.

Out of interest, have you read "Hy Brazil"? It's really rather good. And no, I am not the author, just a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Chithecynic, I guess bottom line is that if we had no criteria, anyone could promote their favorite book or their own book in articles. Thus we have this concept of WP:NOTABILITY which guides us for articles, and we normally use this in sections such as popular culture. We also should look at the significance of entries in such sections as well - just because the author or book is notable enough to have an article, should the book, video game, film, etc be included? This is not a comment on quality of course. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, thank you for the explanation. That seems reasonable to me. Glad it wasn't a reflection of literary snobbery ;-)

User:Chithecynic Nope, I read self-published Kindle books - some are dreadful some are pretty good! Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Dougweller, I am a practicing muslim. I have read the Quran. I go to Islamic seminars and I know what Jihad is all about and I've been learning about it from childhood not from books written by authors and by people who have no clue about islam or the jihad unlike you. Before reverting back my changes Id like you to read the Quran, the hadith, walk into a mosque and ask the imam about Jihad and if the changes I've made are wrong. And the subtopics I've covered are more detailed than your previously entered information on the page and I am gonna add more detail to it. If you think what I have put into the article is wrong you may verify the information first because all your putting into this article is negativity.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12344 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, would you please restore the Osgoode Hall Law School Page to before TheRedPenofDoom removed a whole bunch of things and then protect it again? Or alternatively, could we get a senior administrator to arbitrate? The changes by Red pen of doom are unacceptable imo. Thanks. Alcoxnow (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow

Since you were the only administrator who cared to comment on this report, may I ask you what would you have done in my place to stop this now obvious WP:SNEAKY vandal? Thanks. Windroff (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Windroff Reported it to the Admin who commented, as you've done. I've imposed a 24 hour block. If it continues after that let me know. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll revert his editions, hopefully there'll be no need for further intervention. Windroff (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. Could you please proofread this passage on Mussolini, the Wal Wal border skirmish and the local slave trade and make sure it's ok? I've explained the 'emancipation' situation here. An anonymous ip removed the passage a few minutes after I had contextualized it. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow, too many demands and then there's real life. Is there a source linking the Friedman/James stuff to the next 2 sentences? Otherwise it's OR. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked this IP 4 days ago for one week, but I'm sure when s/he comes back, s/he'll start reverting the other users' edits and making vandalism. I'm really worried about this situation. Also why didn't you move Uthman ibn Affan to Uthman? No one commented on its talk page about changing the title. So can we do it now? Keivan.f^Talk 13:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Someone has objected to it, so I started the formal process. We have to wait to see what the IP does. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Of Ret.Prof, for attempting to turn ANI into a WP:SOAPBOX for his personal grievances. See Andrevan admonished. Please note that I don't make such requests lightly. This is the first time in 9 years I have requested a block on anyone. Ignocrates (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I thought of that but I think I'm too involved, sorry.

Not a problem. I'm going to open a new thread at ANI and that should take care of any perceived conflicts. Thanks anyway. Ignocrates (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A request for a block has been filed at ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm writing here because I'm a new user and trying to figure out how to deal with the situation on the Chuck Lavine page without violating the 3-reverts rule. I made a series of changes to the page after seeking consensus and getting advice- specifically I tried to bring the page into compliance with WIKI:BLP and NPOV, as well as add useful citations and make the format more similar to other politicians' pages. I think the result was factual, neutral and useful, though I'm obviously wide open to criticism (like I said, I'm new here).

However, there's been a consistent effort by one user (going by multiple names) to add back in the objectionable material (I'm particularly irritated with unsourced allegations, for example that Lavine installed red light cameras in exchange for campaign donations from the system's manufacturer). After you blocked NYRAMBLERR (thank you for that), two more users (Modforsquad and then Radman23) made the exact same edits NYRAMBLERR had. I suspect, though obviously can't prove, they are the same person and are using multiple usernames to create the illusion of consensus (they are also ignoring my attempts to reach out on the talk page).

Please advise on how best to proceed.

NYRambler (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is not one chance on earth that i would tell you that kind of information! You are a stranger I am a year 7 student and we learn about stranger danger lol. I think that you should be aware that this site can tell people false info and that many schools get into trouble if they use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susie0susie (talk • contribs) 08:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was trying to find the name of her school so we could discuss the vandalism project they are doing - 100 students tasked to add false information to Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, there may be a hint in the history of the thylacine article. An IP based in Darwin, Australia, made an edit which was reverted by Cluebot about three minutes before Susie0susie's account was registered. Susie0susie's edit was made a few minutes later and reverted by Materialscientist (as you are aware), and was similar to that of the IP. Could a check establish if Susie0susie was editing from a similar location - it could give a location and timeframe to look for other edits? Also, should this be brought up on a noticeboard? 125.168.185.45 (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to "abuse" anyone. "I would really appreciate it if you don't further abuse one of our most abused editors". What are you talking about? Who is this "most abused editor", exactly? Doc talk 09:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: I'm another editor asking you to stop posting in that section at ANI—the subject is whether certain abuse should be documented, and if so, how. The abuse is not of the bad-word variety where editor A said nasty things about editor B—it concerns issues with real-world consequences. Per WP:DENY, it is not a good idea to explain everything in public (particularly when offering such an explanation would invite retaliation with possible real-world consequences). The issue is being discussed at Wikipedia's most public noticeboard, with a lot of clueful editors and admins watching. The fact that no one with knowledge of the situation is concerned about the IP shows that there is nothing to be concerned about. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am abusing one of our most abused editors. Who is it? Is it a big secret only for the clueful to know? Who is this unjustly abused editor, pray tell? Doc talk 10:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I called out Doc's input on the ANI thread more strongly than Doug, but their post here is beyond oblivious, it's rampantly idiotic. The IP is editing logged-out, and experienced editors are explaining why, and so you want us to name him in public. Really? And also don't worry, we got your clever hint about Manchester. Gee. But I sympathise with your dislike of being kept in the dark; perhaps somebody who trusts you (rules me out, though) may be prepared to e-mail you the name. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

And I've called you out on your blatant misuse of "trust" by green lighting edits from a banned user. I got the name of the IP, Bishzilla. I could care less if you trust me, as you like to suck up to those you think will eventually run this site. Good luck. Doc talk 06:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:User:Doc9871, who is this banned user you are accusing User:Bishonen of greenlighting? Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

She knows. This wasn't a recent thing. But it was a user who was banned by the community and remains banned. But we no longer know that, and they are free to sock again. Doc talk 06:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm another user asking you to drop this. If you think the IP in question was a sock of a banned user you are wrong. There is a wide swathe of editors who know the background here. You obviously don't. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I do know who the user is. I'm not as clueless as you think. And I will not prove it by revealing it here. Thanks a bunch. Doc talk 06:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The user I'm referring to with Bish, and the user who this IP actually is, and the most notorious Manchester editor: they are 3 different people. That's all you get out of me. For the "clueful". Yeesh. Doc talk 06:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• You should clarify, Doc9871, because I've no idea what banned user you're referring to and I'm not even sure what "greenlighting" means. I'll say this, though: if you know of any way to stop a banned user from freely socking again, that's quite a breakthrough on your part, because up to now it has been impossible. Some of the most long-time banned trolls are roaming the site as we speak. How hard is it to create a throwaway account, or use an open proxy? Bishonen | talk 10:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

  Of course you know who I'm talking about! Are you joking?! And in not even thinly veiled terms you have called me an incompetent idiot who is unworthy of trust around here. This is terrible form for an admin. Especially considering that I've been here for a long time, with not even one single (non-accidental) block. I don't care about being cutsie and popular here. I am not here to make wiki-pals with anyone. I will call it like I see it. Seeya. Doc talk 04:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You were arguably incompetent. That you are now claiming cluefulness is likely only because someone (Nil Einne) has emailed my identity to you. Until that was done, you were dabbling in something about which you knew nothing merely to make some sort of point about an unrelated discussion elsewhere in which you had failed to get your way. You chose to ignore the advice offered by several people of good standing, including admins, and to push the matter here and elsewhere in a rather idiotic manner. I still doubt whether you really understand what has been going on regarding me, in part because some of it is sub judice anyway and because the history is long, but I guess I'll have to assume that you have in fact now done your homework based on the email that you received.

It really would be best if you dropped this entire thing, Doc, because it is just leading you into more and more dead ends where common sense prevents people from explaining things to you. Nothing on Wikipedia is entirely "open", as much as the world and its dog might think otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to rub my nose in something? "Bad dog!" Piss off. Doc talk 07:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to rub your nose in anything. "The world and his dog" is just a turn of phrase and, I think, has also been the title to a song. Google it anyway and I'm sure you'll find a shedload of hits. - 2.125.151.139 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Please can you RD this edit which I have reverted (not true, not sourced and offensive). HelenOnline 14:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted. We have worse vandalism on BLPs and this person is not even alive. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

She is not alive, but the people who killed her are. HelenOnline 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: Sorry, don't think this qualifies. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks Doug. HelenOnline 16:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

sir, i am trying to give set of links as a welcome note to new users using Twinkle because majority of new users are not aware of policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I want to give it each new user account, now is it all right to do so????

thanks Owais khursheed (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep I got it. Fram is one of the greatest editors of Wikipedia. Owais khursheed (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't know. I'm new to Wikipedia.Thank you.Betterday123098 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Track listing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Doug, was just trying to update the Ethiopia page... [redacted]Metalibertarian (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Metalibertarian ok, but I think your Dr Who edit was also a problem. It's certainly a worthwhile addition to the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked into the Doctor Who episode edit, and see it was replaced, and for what reason which makes sense to me. I'll try to keep up with other edits as well. Best practice would be to employ a free plagiarism checker and self-police my entries from now on. Thanks for you and the others using this account's time. I've really appreciated wikipedia, and am trying to be a constructive part of it. Metalibertarian (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Metalibertarian (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

When I print an article immediately after editing (locally, to a PDF file, but probably also on a real printer), there is a framed window showing "Your edit was saved." across every page. The window obscures the printed text. Could someone please fix that? Maybe CSS provides a way to suppress the window from the printing view. --El Cazangero (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Responded at editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you remember this case? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-/Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cryfe and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ruddah . Both accounts tamper with military articles' infoboxes just like -Ilhador- did [11][12][13]. Both accounts make controversial moves and violate WP:COPYVIO just like -Ilhador- did: [14][15][16][17][18]. I have no time to open an SPI; could you please take care of this WP:DUCK case? --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I spent a bit of time on this and couldn't find the copyvio. What did I miss? Seems likely but I'd like more evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection I withdraw the copyvio part. But it's still pretty clear to me that those two editors are -Ilhador-'s socks. I will collect more evidence and file a CUrequest. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding copyvio: [19] directly taken from here: "Baden joined forces against France, and its countryside was devastated once more." I am sure that I can find many such instances of copyvio if I search a bit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Omnipaedista That's copyvio within Wikipedia which was part of the problem before, I'd forgotten that and was looking for copyvio from outside. Obviously we need more than that, hopefully you'll find more. Sorry I haven't had time. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies. And thanks for welcoming meHikaruaizora (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what Alsótatárlaka means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.157.119 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't care... You found a Hungarian book from 1963 mentioning the name? 5.12.157.119 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I found what we call a reliable source mentioning the name. You don't seem to want to tell me in any case. Even if it is objectionable, I know of a number of English language placenames that aren't very nice, but we don't censor them. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not quite sure what you found. It's not objectionable in the way you thought it was; I was trying to find out why you put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.157.119 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the name of a place. Are you seriously saying the Hungarian Wikipedia is incorrect?[20]. And any edit summary "fuck off" instead of an explanation is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's time you decide to stop being an idiot. Didn't you like 'fuck off'? YOU'RE A F***ING MORON! Moscow is called Moscova in Romanian. This is the page http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscova . This, obviously, is not a reason to call it in the English Wikipedia Moscova. Same with Tărtăria and Alsótatárlaka.

Hi Dougweller - you have reverted activity I posted stating that it is promotional, when in fact it is press coverage in the media talking about various aspects of the LSBF business, posted to inform potential students about LSBF and current activities. Could you consider reverting this decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MenoPorsche (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MenoPorsche (talk · contribs). Dougweller was correct to revert you here. While some of what you added can stay if worded better, your additions were overly promotional. See Wikipedia:Promotional. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be advertisements in any way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is generally for a general audience. Let us say that what you added is not promotional; the content you added to the article still should not be primarily for potential students. Like I stated, Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience. You should also be mindful of WP:Conflict of interest. Do read and study the guidelines I have linked you to.

On a side note: I moved your post down and gave it a heading because new sections go at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, and your post was highjacking a different thread. Also, remember to sign your posts on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your post is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your post for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fyler22 (talk · contribs). Appreciate the input!MenoPorsche (talk)

I am looking to make an article. You seem like a great contributor. I am willing to pay upfront on paypall, online gift card Visa, cash via mail. Please let me know if your interested. GKKelly997 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)GKKelly997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GKKelly997 (talk • contribs)

Is it possible that, instead of being a troll, this might be a scam, intended to steal your card number? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelly's articles about "police" being derived from a Greek word meaning diarrhea makes the troll option seem more likely (though I'm sure they'd be glad to have someone's credit card info). Most scammers usually have terrible grammar so smart people who could get them in trouble don't respond. Aside from "paypall," a missing "or," and "your interested," his grammar isn't bad enough. There's also the "cash via mail" option. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember me? Probably not, but I'm grateful to you for helping me acquire self-confidence as a Wikipedian when I was brand new here. Anyway, on your user page, to the right of the template that reads "God made this user an atheist. Do you question his wisdom?", I see what appear to be two stray curly brackets ("{{"). Also, I'm sad to realize that you have made it known to everyone that you are an atheist. Your talk page was more entertaining when a religious fundamentalist would come by and accuse you of being an atheist, and the next day an atheist would accuse you of being a religious fundamentalist. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I notified user:Vincedumond of his plagiarism and asked him to refrain from such edits.[21] Thought you might need to look into it. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to San Blas Islands? An editor changed the number of islands in the San Blas Islands and changed a link, a web address, for tours of the islands from one web address to another, perhaps trying to promote a tour company. Is that the kind of edit I should just routinely revert? CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD - that's a mess. No reliable sources. The number of islands is disputed, see [22]. We should never have commercial links like those, see WP:EL. I've removed that but haven't done anything else. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. (I guess some people count a small uninhabited pile of rocks as an island and others don't.) CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just come back after a break due to not having a working computer until now. I have just started going through my watch list. I noticed a comment posted on the article's talk page at Talk:Olive Schreiner on 29 September 2014 (followed by a brief reply by an IP editor). If I understand the comment right, this person wants to include his/her own thesis in the article -- isn't that original research? Also, he/she posted his/her comment at the top of the page instead of the bottom. Do you want to reply to this editor? If not, I'll do it, with reference to WP:OR and WP:RS. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's OR. I'd rather you do. Would you point out that whether a particular word existed at a certain time is irrelevant, what we call racism has been around probably since the ancestors of homo sapiens. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed an IP editor has added material to the article on Nishapur. It is all unsourced, and material was included under "Geography" that really belongs in other sections. I also noticed that the sections are not in the same order as they are in other articles. I compared it with the order in Thessaloniki. I don't want to scare off a potential new editor by undoing the edits. Even an edit summary like "Removing unsourced material" might do that. The article clearly needs work. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure is the guideline for article organisation you want. Why not start a friendly discussion on their talk page about sources? And on the article's talk page about organisation. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho:. Done, the problem isn't going to go away. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging from this "new" editor's, Afghan25, contentious attitude and editing on my talk page,[23][24][25], would indicate a blocked user. Initial post on my talk page was clearly hostile followed by two more posts which claimed I added the Ferishta quote[26](actually added by user:Intothefire), along with a personal attack("But lets forget about your prejudice and ignorance"), to "I hope the feeling of being vanquished doesn't hurt too much.".[27] I have removed the latter two posts which had absolutely nothing to do with the Ferishta quote and were nothing but blatant personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to sockpuppet investigation.[28] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A while back someone suggested he was a possible sock of 2 people, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive and [[29]]. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You can add this IP 94.201.32.35. [30] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read this nonsense.[31] wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been out most of the day (on a game cooking course), too tired now. Tomorrow! Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP is obviously the editor and I'd be surprised if he denied it. CU can't be used so if you want an SPI you'd need diffs. So far I don't see anything I can really do and as I really, really need to trim my watchlist I don't want to get involved editing the article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is eating into my life too much and too much of my Wikipedia work is eating into stuff I really want to do on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Agustin.leon21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given a short block by you on 8 October, and a warning not to continue to add unsourced/made up numbers etc to articles, a warning he did not heed, instead creating Agustin.leon20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and just continuing with his disruptive edits. Agustin.leon20 was then blocked indefinitely by Edgar181 on 13 October for disruptive edits and abusing multiple accounts. Which didn't stop him either, because he's now back as Agustin.2110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), doing the exact same kind of edits on the same articles, so could you please put a stop to both Agustin.leon21 (which has obviously been discarded since it hasn't edited since 8 October, but is currently not blocked) and the new account Agustin.2110? Preferably with hard blocks. Thomas.W ^talk 18:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dealt with through WP:AIV since he just went on and on. Thomas.W ^talk 20:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Good. Sorry, I've been out doing agility training with my dog and then some TV! Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As somebody who previously deleted Lia Olguța Vasilescu (bluelinked at the time I type this), you might be interested in this thread at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You added this comment here that is kind of a privacy violation. It's confirmed but it's not essential to the log page that this information be in it. Also, I took Gregkaye to ANI here.~Technophant (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Julsan (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, I added that comment so no one thought he was doing anything nefarious such as sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

as my people the aniyunwiya-cherokee origin is scattered among many scholars there is no one in particular. you mentioned that john Haywood conclusion was not valid simply because others theories yes theories meaning not fact have risen. today many Cherokee believe in many origin stories, many as which as we always been in the south east,also migrated from Mexico which many anthropologist suggest and that we came here from Asia,DNA studies even conclude that the early ancient Americans came from Asia ...One theory listed on the Cherokee page says that we were once part of the Iroquoian nations ( That may be true but that doesn't denote an origin. John Haywood clearly states our origins are from southern Asia that doesn't discard the Iroquoian myth it just dates our origin before Iroquoian contact. Also the theories on Cherokee is discarded by many of us today in many different ways , so just because one theory is not as popular as another doesn't mean it doesn't hold any truths. I know John Haywood conclusion is apart of our history as every other theory plays its part...so they are no cherry picking im planting more cherries, you are cherry picking by discrediting and who ever discredits a theory about a mysterious origin. Key word ( theories ) of origin. and every theory should be valid and any can not be ruled out as specially john Haywoods' because it doesn't criticalize the Iroquoian myth it predates it. If scholars and scientist can say we come from Asia cool, then their should not be any fuss about John Haywood pointing a particular point on the Asian origin. All Cherokee's do not support the myths on the Cherokee page so that should not be up there as well, who can say what theory is creditable or not , my people have many theories and much should be heard , just because it discreditable / rejected by 1 person doesn't mean its rejected by all..its my history and im passionate about it and its not to be played with or be held of bias information all information has its part.Historicfuture12 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cherokee origin stories are known in the community. I don't think there's anything ambiguous about the old, traditional ones. However, as you know, the rise in pan-Indiansim has muddled things a bit, especially in books by non-traditionals and on the intarwebs. You wrote, "DNA studies even conclude that the early ancient Americans came from Asia ..." That statement is untrue. The land bridge theory was controversial from the beginning, and linguistics and DNA show that, to the extent it was relevant, it involved traffic both ways across, and has nothing to do with the Natives from other parts of the landmass. - CorbieV^☊ 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cherokee stories in the communities vary they are more then i can count, yes some are some more prevailant but they are still theories. DNA studies conclude many natives have Asian and all type of DNA, as the Bering strait goes i wouldn't say its false i would say some people came that way also many came by boat and sailed the oceans and seas as early Dravidians did and is mentioned in old sanskrit tect that they reached america in ancient times, many indian scholars and american scholors agree on that, also north African moors came as well this is documented throught united staes treaties and so on. the Dravidians and north african moors were expert navigators and came to America in ancient times way before and Caucasian european sailed the oceans as they had no reference of navigation they simply thought the earth was flat, in columbus's notes etc they claim moors helped them sail to turtle island (the americas). Yes traffic came both ways that IS common sense but many stock came from Asia and that's in many oral history and research..Aniyunwiya/cherokee chief attakullakulla claimed we came here from the far east where the sun rises way before the age of stone age man DURING A SPEECH 1750. ^[1] ..you must realize as a member of Aniyunwiya/Cherokee many of our stories are oral traditions among our people...only a few scholars have had the luxury to speak to some of our medicine men and women in the past, we also kept much knowledge from our oppressor the Caucasian europeans TO PROTECT OUR HISTORY AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE AND SPIRITUALITY. Anthropologists Say Today The Cherokee migrated back and forth from Mexico twice, making the Ozark plateau our home the second time, about 800-1500 years ago. This fact has been proven scientifically ( by Dr. Tim Jones WHO CLAIMS Cherokee descendant) of the University of Arizona -- who holds doctorate degrees in BOTH archeology AND anthropologyHistoricfuture12 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources and theories you are promoting are not representative of traditional Cherokee beliefs as preserved by Elders on the Boundary or in CNO or the UKB. May I suggest you go ask the Elders about this instead of believing fringe websites. - CorbieV^☊ 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

---

photograph of Elamite silver cup

Hello, sorry, I just sent you an e-mail before realizing that maybe I should have used this channel here instead. If it was a mistake I apologize to you (I love Wikipedia but I'm not accustomed to propose contributions...), so I will repeat here the text of my e-mail integrally :

---

Hello, on October 20th at 14:51, user 84.227.226.250 made, together with me, a correction (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elam&action=history ) that you have "undone" a few minutes later... May I ask you the reason of your disagreement ?

The correction concerned the description of the photograph of an Elamite silver cup of the 3rd millennium BC. The sentence was : "Silver cup the sack of Susa in 647 BC. Here, flames rise from the city as Assyrian soldiers topple it with pickaxes and crowbars, with linear-Elamite inscription on it. Late 3rd Millennium BC. National Museum of Iran."

It seems to me that "Silver cup the sack of Susa" is not correct English, and indeed you can realize that the whole string "the sack of Susa in 647 BC. Here, flames rise from the city as Assyrian soldiers topple it with pickaxes and crowbars" is just the repetition of what written about the previous photograph (just one centimeter above) which indeed correctly depicts the sack of Susa with flames and Assyrian soldiers.

That silver cup is just 2000 years older, and obviously there are no flames nor Assyrian soldiers on it. It is a very famous cup, that you can see in many many sites on the Web. It appears that the sentence there had just been corrupted by an inadvertent "copy & paste", that we felt in duty to correct.

Could you please be so kind as to explain why you didn't agree with our correction ?

Kind regards,

---

Julsan (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Julsan, I'm sorry for not replying. I'll get back to you tomorrow. I may have made an error. I'm tired now and am on my way to bed. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I did something wrong, I see that my post about the Elamite silver cup has been appended to somebody's previous post... I'm not sure to understand the reason, please forgive my inexperience... Julsan (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all good, and it's me that needs to ask you for forgiveness. I've reverted myself. I'm not sure what happened there, but it was my error and I'm pleased you brought it to my attention. You could have just reverted me with an explanation in an WP:EDIT SUMMARY. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller, you don't need to apologize ! it was just my first time to try to give a tiny contribution and correct a small mistake in the figure caption, but I did it in a rather messy way... Anyhow, I'm happy of the positive contact. I consider Wikipedia as something wonderful and precious, and I'm very happy that persons like you take care of its integrity. I realize it must not always be an easy task... Julsan (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've also made that same request to HJ Mitchell, so he may get there before you do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And he did so, in fact. But thanks nonetheless and sorry for the bother. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Technophant. After seeing your edit at User talk:Technophant#1RR notification on Syrian Civil War articles I was wondering whether you could take a look at User talk:Technophant#SCW&ISIL sanctions with which I was involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, i would like to point your attention to the fact that recently there have been several general sanction warnings logged by users, who are not administrators. I was myself surprised to be warned of WP:SCWGS by Technophant, while not committing any 1RR violation - and i'm very much familiar with the sanctions - i proposed those!

Logging of warnings by non-administrators was done at Syrian Civil War & ISIL log by user:RGloucester, user:97.117.183.196 (already removed), user:Technophant and at Palestine-Israel articles by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. As far as i checked, there was no WP:ANI procedure in those cases and apparently even no violation of 1RR. The logging of unauthorized warnings at Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions log actually was in parallel with your genuine logging on October 19, so i would like to ask you making some order there by yourself. Meanwhile, i have already removed a single warning, logged by IP user (?!) at the WP:SCWGS, with no ANI procedure as well. Thanks for your attention.GreyShark (dibra) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Greyshark, these notifications are not "warnings". They are notifications that the sanctions exist, and have nothing to do with the behaviour of the editors that are notified. Violations of 1RR or AN/I discussions have very little to do with it. I feel like you are misconstruing the purpose of notifying editors that sanctions exist. It has nothing to do with the behaviour of the editor, with AN/I, or with 1RR. It is merely making clear to the editor that they must behave to a somewhat more stringent standard whilst editing the articles in the scope of the sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts for details:

Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the

formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk

page of the editor being alerted. An alert:

• is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
• cannot be rescinded or appealed, and
• automatically expires twelve months after issue.

As {{Ds/alert}} template is part of this procedure, it may be modified only with the committee's explicit consent.

Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues

alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Are you clear about this now? I've reverted your removal of the IP's logging of an alert as IPs are editors. And although these are not warnings, IPs can issue normal warnings as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see one other bit of confusion. General sanctions and 1RR are often related but are not the same thing, as general sanctions are much wider. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There were no vaiolations of 1RR in those cases, the logging of sanctions is not justified with no procedure. This has never happened before. Users cannot warn each other and log each other with no reason.GreyShark (dibra) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding what's happened. This isn't about 1RR or 'warnings'. It is merely a sanctions notification, meant to inform editors that the articles they are editing are under sanctions. The point of the notification is not to warn an editor that they've broken 1RR, but to inform them that 1RR and general sanctions exist. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No i'm perfectly understanding. Actually, i wrote some of those warning templates last year when WP:SCWGS was authorized by community. The template that you should use in case of ""sanction notifications" is template:uw-1rrSCW and not Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement (which is official warning) and in any case only administrators can log the warnings at WP:SCWGS as a result of WP:ANI. Official warnings are used to justify later sanctions, and their improper log is forbidden.GreyShark (dibra) 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:GreyShark, sanctions include " revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." 1RR is something different and an editor can be blocked for breaking 1RR without being warned, alerted, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but i'm aware of all that - i'm a senior editor and i was one of the initiators of WP:SCWGS sanctions. The problem is the fact that the above described users start logging warnings with no reason (with no ANI procedure). Logged warnings are often used to justify later bans, and it is the first time in history non-administrators are utilizing logged warnings. There is some misunderstanding here. Would you like me to bring this for clarification and amendment?GreyShark (dibra) 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the "first time in history" that discretionary or general sanctions notifications (please stop using the term "warning", as these are NOT warnings) have been issued by non-administrators. It is standard practice, as it says at the guidelines for this matter. It happens daily with WP:ARBEE sanctions, which is an area I'm more familiar with. These are not "warnings", these are notifications. I don't understand why you are not listening to what I'm saying. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the rules but I am annoyed that the user took it upon himself to put my name on the notification list for no reason. It is unjustified and harassment since every editor active on these pages knows about the sanctions. I fully expect that that will be used against me by someone unhappy with my edits. I want it rolled back. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is so awkward that some people think that "anyone" can make warnings, thus i don't see any reason why "anyone" wouldn't be able to remove such warnings. I'm issuing an official inquiry into this non-sense once and for all.GreyShark (dibra) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have "official inquiries" here. "Anyone" can log notifications, if they follow the appropriate guidelines. I.e. an editor can receive one notification in a year, and no more. Furthermore, the editor that gives the notification must not use to threaten the editor receiving it, and must use the bare notification template. For the final time, these are not "warnings". They cannot be used against anyone. All they do is inform. If an editor is informed that sanctions exist through notification, that means that they cannot claim that they are not aware of the sanctions in the event that they edit disruptively. As long as you edit properly, and follow good editing processes, there is no problem. Legacypac, there is nothing to roll back. Your notification was entirely appropriate, as you've not been notified before. Let's follow the guidelines, please. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard.GreyShark (dibra) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please look at Neekan (talk · contribs)'s edits. Almost all of them are unexplained content deletions and edit wars. According to me, this user is a vandal and obviously not here to contribute to building the encylopedia. The user was warned many times about the same behaviors but it seems that he won't change. l think an indef block would be useful in order to prevent wikipedia articles. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Most probably, the user is sock of the banned user Farshidvard (talk · contribs). ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The worm has turned. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

you have to edit your source? This edition is completely wrong

• Bukan can be found at GEOnet Names Server, at this link, by opening the Advanced Search box, entering "-3057083" in the "Unique Feature Id" form, and clicking on "Search Database".

• GEOnet Names Server (imge)مسعود بوکانی (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Bridgeport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[John Rassias], linguist and [[Dartmouth College|Dartmouth]] faculty member

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walk On By (Leroy Van Dyke song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Conway Twitty]], [[Dean Martin]], [[Patti Page]], [[Hank Williams Jr], [[Connie Francis]], [[Robert Gordon]], and [[Asleep at the Wheel]] have also

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I recently deleted irrelevant text from the following webpage which was subsequently re-posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Caitlin_Matthews

-begins- Ronald Hutton, commenting on Caitlin Matthews' works, states that she "falls below the standards required of a professional historian. She makes no attempt to distinguish between the relative value of sources, so those from the seventh century and from the seventeenth are put together with no sense of context." He also states that she conditions her work to the needs of her audience and that she has incorrectly suggested parallels between Celtic lore and Native American religion. -ends-

I removed the text because it was unhelpful and not relevant to John or Caitlin Matthews. either claim to be 'professional historians'. Subsequent comments concerning non-attempts to distinguish relative sources from a professor of history seem misplaced. Ronald Hutton deals with academic histories and Caitlin. I must also state that Ronald is happily writing a forward for an anthology in which Caitlin will pen a chapter. The book contract was signed yesterday and I will edit the tome.

Caitlin and John's website describe themselves in the following way: begins- Together we like to explore the myths of Britain and Ireland, uncover the Celtic and Arthurian mysteries, explore the shamanic possibilities and create rituals that honour the ancestral ways and tell the ancient stories that our descendants will remember. ends-

In the anthology, Caitlin's biog will read:

begins- CAITLíN MATTHEWS is a teacher of the ancestral and shamanic traditions of Britain and Ireland . As a recognized wisdom-keeper and elder, she teaches these traditions, re-awakening memory of ancestral wisdom for faith groups, cultural institutions and communities of the Celtic diaspora worldwide, working across diverse faith and cultural traditions. She is the author of over 60 books, including Singing the Soul Back Home, Sophia Goddess of Wisdom and Celtic Wisdom Oracle: Ancestral Wisdom and Guidance. She is co-author with her partner John Matthews of the classic Walkers Between the Worlds which has been in print since 1984. Her books have been translated into over 30 languages worldwide. She is currently working on The Book of Ancestral Wisdom: a guide to reconnection with ancestors. She is a co-founder of the Foundation for Inspirational and Oracular Studies, dedicated to the sacred and ancestral arts that are held in oral memory and practice. Caitlín lives in Oxford where she has had a shamanic healing practice for 25 years dedicated to healing ancestral fragmentation. www.hallowquest.org.uk ends-

No mention of them being a historians. To therefore permit comments that criticize them for not being historians is like permitting criticisms for them not being bricklayers, archaeologists or reborn again Christians - all of which would also be irrelevant.

I know Ronald Hutton. He is a good man and I like him very much, but the previously removed comments are irrelevant and so I request that they are deleted.

In spirit, there are, broadly speaking, overlaps between ancient native Americans and modern british paganisms, especially in concern of the three fold relationships between landscape, ancestors and self.

In friendship,

paul davies daviespaul1@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.165.254 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I am confused with this Bijbehara Massacre. The article I think contradicts with itself. The article says that it is about Indian Army vs Kashmiri rebels meaning militants. Then it says that it was an unarmed protest against seige of a mosque and Indian army killed 48 people (protestors). And 12 BSF men accused of firing at innocent people. And the victims were given compensation money.If th the protestors were militants they would have never been given compensation. So that means they were not rebels or fighters because rebellion means armed war. I have got sources which are official newspaper's here which say the people were unarmed, then why does it is said on wikipedia that they were rebels and then contradicting with itself.

Thanks Night Fury (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Night Fury I think you've sorted that now. I didn't realise who you were, but I agree with you and left a note on the talk page. It used to be ok but someone changed it to call them rebels in the lead, obviously a pov editor - or one of the pov editors at that article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks sir for your help. I am Owais khursheed and Night Fury is my signature on Wikipedia. Again thanks for your help. Night Fury (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walk On By (Leroy Van Dyke song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Gordon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

can you add a new row on turkic people about sports jereed,Dzhigit and Buzkashi is turkic sport:) mehmeett21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.27.221 (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, looking at this, I got concerned : do you see any spam in the French article or did I misunderstand you ? Cheers, — Racconish^✉ 15:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look for spam there (the spam was a blog being added by the creator of the English Parker editor to various articles). What I did see was David Hatcher Childress and Rene Noorbergen being used, neither of them reliable sources. By the way, you just added a relist template to my talk page, last week I ran across {{reflist-talk}}. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and apologies for the wrong template (I saw a ref popping up under my message, just wanted to tidy up before leaving... and I was not aware it could create any inconvenience). I shall give some thought to your comment, but my first reaction is these are good examples of the use in popular litterature of an expression which you would not expect to find in a more serious book. In any case, the French article is still a work in progress. Cheers, — Racconish^✉ 18:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, you deleted the entry @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montagu_Brownlow_Parker,_5th_Earl_of_Morley&curid=43897727&diff=630773500&oldid=630773329 and suggested the modification was spam and or copyright as a reason. I'm not sure I understand why either is valid. The blog contains a reference to the Parker Map which does not seem to be available elsewhere. Further can you please clarify which material you identify as a copyright breach? Copytopic1 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Copytopic1: You've been spamming the blog at israelfact.blogspot.com.au/ which I hope you aren't doing anymore. See WP:SPAM, I don't know if you have a relationship with the blog or not, but setting aside the fact it fails our criteria for sources or external links at WP:RS and WP:ELNO it was being added inappropriately at times, one of the things that makes clear it was being added anywhere you could fit it in. The copyvio was from [32] - I'm using the Wayback version to show the date, which was before you copied material from it. However, you seem to be a new user so this isn't a big edal unless of course it's repeated. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

can you help me on the page turkic people i will putt refernce and pictures but i am not godd at that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I opened this up [33]. I see you've already struck one of the socks comments. The same person caused the Rationalwiki race-talk pages to be locked for excessive disruption and vandalism a week or so back. Both account are linked via posting the same 'genetic cluster' image. FossilMad (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

FossilMad Couldn't find the link for the IP posting the same image that Peasant posted. We need it. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

[34] 210.101.189.92 is a South Korean IP, and he posted the cluster image on another sock called PhilPhilpot 7 minutes after. His Phil sock only has one post. Also on the same day, or the day after, he was blocked on Frank Dickman [35], which I noticed is the same name he has logged on his Wikipedia-sock archive here. [36]. So yes, this is definitely the same person. All of the Rationalwiki "race talk" pages he caused to be locked because of excessive vandalism, so that would also explain his increased presence here in the last couple of weeks.FossilMad (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller! I have a funky feeling about Lara Maigue. I'm mentioning it to you only because you have one or two intersections with her and I couldn't think of anyone else to bother. . Example. I notice that she has 117 edits across all Wikimedia projects, but she was slick enough to get Twinkle, start filing sock reports, slapping people (improperly) with confirmed sock templates (many on October 20), etc. How could she have such a familiarity with so many socks after so few edits? Her English is very poor--it's almost incomprehensible--and it reminds me a lot of McVeigh. In fact, I think I may have happened upon her while looking at some of McVeigh's talk page interactions. She's also done other weird things like suddenly establishing a talk page archive for Carniolus, then tweaking it so it reflects archives into 2024. Anyhow, something's funky and I was hoping you'd poke around a little to see if you got the same impression. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Cyphoidbomb. Ponyo's indefinitely blocked "16:46, 25 October 2014 Ponyo (talk | contribs | block) blocked Lara Maigue (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Checkuserblock-account) (unblock | change block)". You were obviously right, well done. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Man, and to think I could've gotten in on the ground floor! I still think there's a strong possibility she's just one of several accounts. Too much bad English going around in this group for it to be a coincidence. Ponyo, could you take a look at these other users, please. Something is funky. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the relevant SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamaluigi2.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dougweller, I hope this message finds you doing well. It seems that on File:Punjabi example.svg User:Babanwalia mistakenly removed the Devanagari script from that image, as well as from the Punjabi language article. Could you please restore the 11:26, 25 January 2014 version of the file as it includes all three scripts used for writing the language? I would really appreciate it! I have restored the information, and have also added a reference to the article, that you may wish to see. Thank you for your time and help. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Anupam, I see that another editor has fixed this now. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

it was me who asked about help i have put sports in turkic people page and I would be grateful if you fix the refernce and and add as you like:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism has slowed down. Even so, extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Out_of_India_theory#Recent_deletion, same as Talk:Indigenous_Aryans#Genetics_section. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I just saw a series of vandalism edits to John Calvin by two different editors over the last ten days. I wonder if both editors should be blocked from editing (if they haven't already been). CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked again. I see that the unregistered user (the one with the red user name) was blocked. The other one (the one with the long series of letters and numbers) has not been blocked.

I am puzzled by the edit summary of the latest edit. I have no feeling or agenda either way about that word, but I'm wondering why it was called a "weasel word" -- I found a definition on Wiktionary -- and how someone can say "Don't use that word on WP." I can see how the word might be offensive to some readers, and maybe it's not even accurate there. CorinneSD (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), @CorinneSD:: I can't imagine how supersessionist would qualify as a weasel word (see WP:WEASEL). Claims that it's original research or unsourced would be possible, though I'd have to bother looking at the article to comment as to their validity or invalidity in this case.

Slight note on convention: The long string of characters beginning with "2601:b" is an IPv6 address. He is unregistered. The guy with the red username "Sergeyrockspoopfood" is actually registered (or else he wouldn't have a username) but hasn't created a userpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thanks, Ian. I'm sorry that I didn't see this until today. Since I don't know what, if anything, to do with that, I won't do anything. I just wanted to point out the pretty bad vandalism a few days back. CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You know that the military infobox was there probably since this page was written for the first time. Was there ever any discussion about removing it before? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Other pages like Battle of Siddim, Battle of Banquan have also used military infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad you may be blocked from editing. The Vandalism on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad harm Wikipedia's reputation. We are not a religious organisation and hence accept all criticism of religion that referenced with appropriate sources. Fines may follow !

Sources here include:

• Quran
• Tirmidhi
• Maududi, Abul A'la (1993). Finality of Prophethood. Islamic Publications.
• Nadwi, Abul. Qadianism - A Critical Study. Islamic Research and Publications.
• Websites: like http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/qadian.htm
• Roohani Khazain by Mirza
• Tadhkirah by Mirza
• Mawahib-ur-Rahman
• Dawat-O-Irshad, USA

See WP:BP, WP:NOT, WP:VAN Adjutor101 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We at Wikipedia take Vandalism Adjutor101 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I don't really agree with his edits either, they are pretty promotional(to a specific ideology) and purely polemic. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjutor101 has recently added that whole again. Citations are still not reliable enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

my user page go deleted. why? JEMead (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC) sorry - it reappeared. hmmm JEMead (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. A while back you indicated you'd support my admin nomination. [37] Do you still feel this way and if so, would you be willing to put forth the nomination? Please be aware that I haven't written any articles and that I focus on maintenance and assisting other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I would probably support. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll have my support too. I haven't researched what you do the rest of the time, but whenever you are on my watchlist your edits are well-considered and welcome. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to - I obviously need to look at your edits, talk page etc to decide what to say. It may take me a few days. I'm out all day Saturday at an archaeology conference but will hopefully start tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I'll be busy with work the rest of the week and was going to ask you to hold off the nom until next week if you agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul's page is a lightening rod for attacks because of only one book he wrote on the Theosophy Masters. Most of his work does not involve the Theosophical Society's Masters. If his Page is to stay, it should be balanced out to reflect all his works. The majority of his work has been after his brief period with the TS (late 1990's). The theosophy stuff is minor except for a very vocal group of people who attack him. The page should actually be deleted in my opinion. JEMead (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I delete his page? JEMead (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Until we get an afd up,I don't see one yet, can I revert your reversion? I don't want a reversion war. JEMead (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a new editor who apparently thinks primary sources lifted from Peter Kirby's website are sufficient for a newly created article on the Book of Elchasai. My talk page explanations pointing to WP:PSTS, WP:V and WP:RS have gone unheeded, and the editor just removed a tag I placed to improve the article. Can you please look into this? Ignocrates (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I brought the matter of reliable sources to RSN. The conduct issue is still unresolved. Stripping off refimprove tags and claiming they are a violation of WP policy is not a good predictor of constructive editing. Ignocrates (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Busy day in real life and still quite a bit to do, sorry. Will try to take a look sometime. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush. The article will receive comments at RSN for a few days before any decisions are made. It appears to have been added directly to mainspace without going through the WP:AFC process for a preliminary review. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing anymore. Ignocrates (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is going from bad to worse. Now there is a link to www.newadvent.org, making it non-NPOV as well as non-RS. Don't we have tutorials somewhere to minimize these kinds of rookie mistakes? Ignocrates (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw your note on the article talk page. The link to NewAdvent should go for the same reason, and it also creates an NPOV problem. Ian.thomson provided ample secondary and tertiary sources to improve the article on the talk page, so RSN did its job as far as I'm concerned. The bigger issue is that the article was never properly reviewed before it was added to mainspace. It has less content and poorer sourcing than the parent Elcesaites article, so it shouldn't have been created as a spin-out (the Book of Elchesai link is a redirect). Therefore, it's not ready for prime-time, and could be (and probably should be) moved to AFC space or the author's userspace. Meanwhile, I'm going to put the tags back in good faith to encourage other editors to improve it using the sources Ian provided. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bfpage came to the rescue with some additional content and sources, so I'm dropping the stick on this one. It's more consistent now with the general level of quality in the category. Ignocrates (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Good. I saw that, taking it off my huge watchlist now. Trying to cut down on numbers and do more editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Doug -- I just made a minor edit to Ancient history to make a sentence more concise (and fix punctuation), but I still wonder if the sentence could be further improved. It is the sole sentence in the third paragraph of the lead:

"In India, the period includes the early period of the Middle Kingdoms, and, in China, the time up to the Qin Dynasty.

I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid using the word "period" twice in the sentence. Can you think of a word that would work in place of one of them, but preserving the correct meaning? CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: "In India, ancient history includes the early period". Sorry not to reply earlier, just too busy. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Recently, you reverted an edit I made to the Prehistory of Australia article. I had replaced the phrase "earliest ancestors of the Aboriginals" with "earliest inhabitants of Australia." I made this change as a clarification to signify the distinction between these two concepts as the identification of the earliest Australian migrants as ancestors of modern Aboriginals remains a matter of scholarly discussion: a moot point, as they say. From the context it seemed likely to me that the paragraph was definitely discussing the earliest occupation of Australia. What were your reasons for reverting my change? Ordinary Person (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ordinary Person:I see no evidence of it being a moot point. Maybe it is, but History of Indigenous Australians, History of Australia, Aboriginal Australians and the article in question don't suggest that to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I'll get my thoughts and sources together. It is possible that it might be best dealt with by leaving the text as you have left it and including a footnote discussing the matter I've mentioned. Ordinary Person (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, consider for instance the article on Lake Mungo remains. These are probably the oldest human remains in Australia, and, as the article indicates, DNA evidence suggests they are not related to modern aboriginal Australians. I'll pop a couple of sentences in the Prehistory of Australia article about this.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I had a go. I'm not sure that the format I've used is correct, as I just want to provide a sidenote. Now that I come to think of it, the previous version "There is considerable archeological discussion as to the route taken by the first ancestors of the Aborigines" is clearly not correct when taken literally, as there were ancestors of the Aborigines living in Africa millions of years ago. The first migrants to Australia might well be among the ancestors of Aborigines but they are certainly not the first ancestors of Aborigines. My revised version says "the first migrants to Australia, widely taken to be ancestors of the modern Aborigines".Ordinary Person (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work there User:Ordinary Person. That's fine. I can see that the Lake Mungo remains are pretty controversial, not surprisingly. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sir, how the creation of "Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" be WP:CONTENTFORK because we have article Jesus and Criticism of Jesus, article Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad on Wikipedia. Please reply..... Thanks. Night Fury (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that those two are considered to be much more important historically and of course the material in those has been accumulating for over 2000 years in the case of Jesus, not quite that long for Muhammad. Maybe in a thousand years? The fact that we have a few articles like that isn't justification for just any article. That's beside the fact that Adjutor101 couldn't possibly write one following our guidelines and policies - he has demonstrated that he can't work with others which has led to his long block. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Goldstone, Nancy (2007). Four Queens: The Provençal Sisters who ruled Europe. New York: Viking Penguin. ISBN 9780670038435.
I get the distinct impression this is a "popular" history, not a serious academic work. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Looking at her bio, I'd agree. But the acid test is looking in Google Books and Google Scholar to see if she's cited and by whom. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Found it mentioned(Cornell University Press), and it states that Goldstone's work is simply popular history.[38] I did not find it used as a source in any academic works. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources provided in the section say that the Dungan and Panthay Revolts happened because they were Muslims or that the revolt was due to religion. It is exactly because on the contrary, sources say that they had little to do with religion that the section should be largely deleted with all the material on the Dungan and Panthay Revolts cleared out. Nowhere does it say the Qing persecuted Muslims because they were Muslims. And in addition to that, the paragraph on Uyghurs says its ethnic persecution, it doesn't say Uyghurs were targeted for being Muslims but that they are targeted for being Uyghur. This would go into a racism and not a religious persecution for being Muslim article. That means the entire section needs deletion. And also the material on Tibet explicitly mentioned Islam as a religion (Tibetans claiming alleged Islamic proselytizing by serving Tibetans the cremated ash of Imams) as a reason for Tibetan attacks and hostility to Islam.Rajmaan (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

But also, opposing points of views on a subject are valid material to be included in an article. If material which just says that the Qing or government treated people of xx religion nicely and says nothing about persecution then I understand that it is off topic and should be deleted. But the material doesn't just say that, it explicitly mentions the premise of persecuting or fighting because of religion, and then explicitly rejects and criticizes that premise as a reason for the conflict. Both sides of a debate and their point of view should be included if one point of view is also centered around criticizing the opposing point of view. If a reliable source explicitly says that something did not happen and was noticeable for that fact, it is valid material for inclusion. A made up analogy is if there were two articles published about Iraq in two newspapers- one article says that the new interim Iraqi government rejected a contract by Haliburton or some American oil company to drill for oil and signed an agreement with another foreign company instead. It says nothing else. Someone tries putting that into the Iraq War article and uses is as a reference to claim that America did not invade Iraq because of oil. It gets rightfully deleted because the article says nothing about the Iraq War. However, an article in another newspaper mentions the rejected contract and says that the Iraqi government is not being forced by American forces stationed in Iraq to sign it so America did not enter the war for oil but instead did it for other reasons. That can be used as a valid source in the Iraq War article on the criticism section to add another opposing viewpoint. Criticism of an article's topic is valid, that's why many articles have criticism sections on their topics with reliable sources. What I added is sourced criticism of the topic

Also the Syrian section has absolutely nothing to do with persecution of Muslims and needs to be deleted entirely too.Rajmaan (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some information on there is patently irrelevant and wrong, Linxia, not Xi'an, was the most important city for Hui Muslims and in fact the Hui Muslim community in Xi'an survived the war intact while other communities in Shaanxi did not so there is no reason for this sentence - "Xi'an, the capital of Shaanxi province, was the Holy city of Dungan (Hui) in China before the revolt. "Rajmaan (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about this PI, 81.155.210.131 ? He's over 3RR today, and about half-a-dozen-RR for the last few days. I'm at 2RR myself, so I can't do anything about his latest revert. I'm going to put an edit warring template on his talk page, which he'll ignore. Is it too early to request administrative help? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind -- Materialscientist is way ahead of me, and he's already blocked for vandalism/edit warring. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: probably because of my report at AIV:[39] - I was too involved to block. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha -- another senior moment for me, I didn't realize you were an admin. I notice that all of the people who object to labeling Mullins an antisemite have never actually read any of his books, since Mullins himself never denied that he was antisemitic, and actually seemed proud of it at times. I also notice -- not that this is any sort of brilliant insight -- that dismissal of all WP:RS as "Zionist propaganda" is a pretty obvious red flag. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Another revert this morning,[40] this time from 81.155.209.224, who is probably a sock evading the block, since the IP geolocates to the exact same place in central England. I'm not familiar enough with the technical details to know if that's sufficient proof to extend the block, or whatever. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I posted to the blocking editor. IP hoppers are a pain, but the Mullins article has pending changes now anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. It has been my understanding that with some common sense exceptions, local elections are not usually notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. However that understanding has been challenged (1) (2). I dropped a note on the editor's talk page, which has not yet gotten a reply (s/he may be just be busy). In any event I am leaning towards sending them to AfD but wanted to get a second opinion first.

@Ad Orientem: WP:GNG still applies. If it fails that, take it to AfD and let me know. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think that perhaps this question needs to be discussed a bit more broadly as there appear to be a lot of articles on purely local elections floating around. To which end I have asked for community input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I have a feeling that the answer is going to be that local elections will normally be notable if GNG is the main criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just want to know why the Rasta movement was deleted and what was the statement that made no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.90.95 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an article Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the 'Establishment' section of this article is directly copied from [41], an IP editor removed all the content but i reverted him because i thought he is removing content without specific reason but it is actually copy pasted from the link above. Please take care of the matter. thanks Night Fury (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the material. It was a blatant copyright infringement and have left a note with the details at Talk:Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Night Fury, I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part but the IP left a clear edit summary explaining the removal and provided a link to the page which had been copied. When using automated tools, it is very important that you actually read the edit summary carefully before reverting. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: this is actually a confusing area. Time and again I see people copy/pasting from Indian government websites and the argument often is that government-published material is public domain under Indian law. Contrary to that, a fair few of those government websites do carry a copyright notice. Most Indian government websites are hosted and/or designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC).

Personally, I'm opposed to copy/pasting stuff regardless of whether it is PD or not, and regardless of origin, but some sort of clarification of the situation regarding Indian government material might be useful. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. The NIC websites with the .gov.in extension do not have a compatible license for copying onto Wikipedia. Not only do they not allow reproduction without first obtaining permission by email, they never give permission for the quoted text to be altered. See here. So no, unless an individual .gov.in page carries an explicitly displayed license of public domain or cc-by-SA, they cannot be copied verbatim. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Copyright law of India. The only "government works" not subject to copyright are these. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just reading our article, not that I would rely on it! Your link to the NIC guidance makes the situation very clear, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's accurate, Sitush. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table has pretty much the same thing. Speaking of which, Doug, good job on the stubbing. Both of the images in that article were copyvios as well. I've nominated them for deletion at Commons. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: and @Sitush:Thanks guys for your help, every time i make mistakes, i learn many new things. I will take care of the thing in future. Night Fury (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller:, First thank-you for intervening at Talk:ISIL with your citation of WP:LEAD. That was very timely and appreciated.

I am very concerned about the exertion of pressures on the article from outside influences. If it came to a WP:Vote, it wouldn't take much for members of an outside Cabal, whether in coordination or not, to become involved and present the group look like Disney. I was wondering whether any mechanisms could operate by which key decisions could be addressed via an independent decision making process or whether outside interventions might beneficially be brought into play. One of the big issues that has been in the news has been Islamic criticism of ISIL and yet reference to this criticism has been surreptitiously edit warred out of the lead which only came to light late on in a discussion as to whether to put it back. I was wondering whether a mechanism in something like village pump might be used to address various issues. Any help or advice that you can give will be appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkay: If that happens we can sort it. We don't have any mechanism such as you suggest nor are we likely to agree to one. We don't vote anyway, it's the weight of policy and guidelines that should determine most things. We've got WP:NPOV for instance. A lot of people don't know about WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dougweller Thanks, and to an extent that's quite reassuring. It would be nice if all editors had to register and even give statements regarding background. There can be a lack of openness. (See: Talk:ISIL#Israel should be added to the opponents' list). I also wish I had known about WP:BEGIN earlier :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GregkayeThat's never going to happen for a number of reasons, and the bad guys would lie anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In many cases this may be apparent. However some people manipulate, pressure and spin but don't overtly lie but, admittedly, I maybe taking the giving of the benefit of doubt too far. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted user:thismightbezach edits to Killing Jesus. He is making similar edits (deleting critical reviews) to Killing Patton, also by Bill O'Reilly. Thanks. user:Jimintheatl

User:Jiminheat1 watching but MotherJones probably not good source for a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the "Killing Patton" page, not the Bill O'Reilly page. Thanks. Jimintheatl The same user you reverted for his partisan edit to Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Jesus" is now trying to include promotional materials from O'Reilly's website for his latest book "Killing Patton." This is clearly inappropriate. Thanks.--Jimintheatl

I'm only keeping the article fair and neutral. An author's response to criticism is not inappropriate; it's also included in the Killing Lincoln article. I've tried to talk with Jimintheatl, but he keeps blanking his page. He's not interested in having an open dialogue. Thismightbezach (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the two is also obvious. On Killing Lincoln, O'Reilly was specifically responding to the Ford Theater's list of historical inaccuracies which caused the Theater to bar the sale of the book. On Killing Patton, O'Reilly isn't responding anything in particular, just issuing a generic 'the far left loons hate me' whine.---Jimintheatl

Actually, if you watch the clip, he's responding to an e-mail from someone who asked about the Washington Post review you included in the article accusing O'Reilly of omitting details about Patton's purported anti-Semitism.^[1] Patton's own wiki article makes no mention of such beliefs. The columnist has a history of personally attacking O'Reilly. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not on the ref you used. Jimintheatl

I thought the proper newspeak for "sanitised of critical opinions" was "Fair and Balanced"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol! Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You add me as a party with no explanation here or in the request? As an ex-Clerk I don't need the links, but a reason would have been nice. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Doug, in reply to your comment "Leaving aside the eponymous bit, it is clearly NPOV to have Wikipedia state as fact that Jacob is the ancestor of the Israelites."

I agree and only removed the word eponymous. I agree that it is NPOV to state as fact that Jacob is the ancestor of the Israelites. Please remove the word eponymous or I will as it clearly violates NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.8.100 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: this

Turns out that is not actualy an Ambedkar quote; it is just Jabbar's paraphrase of BA"s opinions (which are noteworthy as I note on article talk page, and should be included... but in a different form). Can you self-revert or rework the content appropriately?

The article has huge gaping coverage holes. Hoping that the renewed attention will help cover some of them, although as usual don't know exactly when I'll be able to get to it. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this guy? Says he has written on ancient history but looks pseudo archeology to me and no reliable references. Is he notable? Goblin Face (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Goblin Face: There may be a few contexts in which he can be used, but normally I'd say no. Any specific issue? Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's this guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - of course, my home town. Glad your memory is better than mine. Thanks, and I've closed the case. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for the block. I thought it was either him or Sam Moser, had to check the archives to remember that Moser's obsession is "(random statement) = 777." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

W. A. Wigram, An introduction to the history of the Assyrian Church. Wigram appears to be an Anglican priest and his work is over a hundred years old. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty dubious. I didn't check GScholar but did check GBooks. Not much evidence for him being used there but I did find [42]. In part it depends on how he's being used. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doug- I hope you don't mind me bugging you for advice. I'm looking for some guidance on how to draw attention to an editing campaign by User:Jayjg using AWB to change seemingly every instance on WP of the usage centers around to centers on. (his contributions). Do you think WP:RFC/USER is the route to go in a case like this? He's making hundreds of these edits, and a couple of us have tried to get his attention, as yet to no avail. Please let me know if I should be requesting advice elsewhere, and thanks in advance for any pointers. Eric ^talk 15:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[User:Eric|Eric]]; - he's a very experienced user as well as a sysop so I presume he thinks he's got a good reason. How about dispute resolution? I don't think an RfC/U would be appropriate. Some links:[43] [44] [45] [46]. What bothers me is the speed at which it's being done, which has led to at least one error. Let's also see if he replies here. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and links. Yes, the speed of the campaign is what prompted me to raise a flag. So would the dispute resolution be via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard? Eric ^talk 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric I have seen people having their AWB and also TWINKLE access removed from community decision, just file a complaint on Administrators' noticeboard, and remember to ask for a topic ban, because he is a admin, his access cannot be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)